Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fastily (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 6 October 2011 (→‎User:Student7: nd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Rollback (add request)


User:Levonscott

I have asked once before and been denied because I had only done 4 edits in the article namespace, but I am back with more experience under my belt this time! Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 04:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, you now have 7 edits to articles. That's a noticeable improvement, an addition of 75% your previous value! With hard work, I can assure you that you will gain the rollback button. Good luck, --Σ talkcontribs 05:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Not done and not likely to be done Please contribute to some articles and revert vandalism before re-requesting. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with the decision to reject the request; but I believe the replies we've given might just be perhaps too harsh... Wifione Message 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed my rather-too-snarky comment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Is it time yet (I have got even more experience under my belt now...) I recently speedied Matty yates so that will show you how I can work as a rollbacker! Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 09:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Not done and not likely to be done Especially in light of this copy and paste which is the bulk of your article editing now. Also, your unnecessary page moves with mathletics to make way for a non-notable article shows you do not understand policy. You have made zero edits that show you know what vandalism is, so no rollback will be granted. only (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly noted here in line 116 here that I took most of it from the website: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NxtOSEK&action=historysubmit&diff=452821721&oldid=318832576) But I will accept you do not like that. I do not know how to do it correctly, I have never actually cited anything! And with Mathletics, obviously you have never used it. Go here and you will find it is not 'non-notable': (http://www.mathletics.com.au/home.asp?section=). Thank you, I have expressed my anger about your wrong comments (not to be rude...).
Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to go to a talk page, or you can assume that the user was not educated in our copyright policies, and educate him accordingly. →Σ ⚑  ☭  05:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article you created on Mathletics read: "Mathletics is an online maths program". It in no way shows notability. It was clearly a speedy deletion candidate. As for your copy and paste...yes, you said "here's where I copied it from" but that doesn't allow you to do it under our copyright policy. You need permission from the owner of the content to do so. Even then, it should be adapted to our formats and standards, not just copied and pasted. Since you do not seem to understand policies such as these, I can't see any way you'll be granted rollback in the near future. only (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but mathletics would grow. I only made it us a stub and I even stated that. I do not see why it was deleted. I only did it as a skeliton so people could grow it! Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 05:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) How does that excuse you from our copyright policy? You answered to "adapted to our formats and standards", while the most important question would be copyright policy (in my opinion, as that is fully illegal). It doesnt show notability, the article contains a how-to section, it links to a minuscule # of other articles (none appeared to be added by you), meaning it has little likely hood of others noticing its existence (4 articles link to it (1 redirect), page has less than 30 watchers). mysterytrey (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cncplayer

Although my activity has been low this month, I want to find a way to revert vandalism quicker than Twinkle. Rollbacking sounds good. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) You seem to have only made about three reverts of vandalism, one with Twinkle. You should probably get some more experience before requesting the rollbacker right. Logan Talk Contributions 00:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. You have little to no recent experience fighting real vandalism here on Wikipedia. If you want the rollback tool, show us that you need it! Go to Special:RecentChanges and make 50 or so vandalism reverts, either with the undo function, or the userscript, Twinkle. Once you have done that, come back and request the tool again. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will post again once I done some more reverting. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. Done more reverting. Twinkle is too slow for me. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 20:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done now. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jpatokal

Because mass reverts like this morning's are pretty tedious without it. Jpatokal (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. You have little to no recent experience fighting real vandalism here on Wikipedia. If you want the rollback tool, show us that you need it! Go to Special:RecentChanges and make 50 or so vandalism reverts, either with the undo function, or the userscript, Twinkle. Once you have done that, come back and request the tool again. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? I've been on Wikipedia since 2003 and have 14,000+ edits, including thousands of vandalism reverts. [1] I would do more if it wasn't a pain in the ass to do it, hence the request. Jpatokal (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On closer review, I note that your talk page bears numerous edit warring warnings and complaints regarding reverts you have made. In spite of your tenure on Wikipedia, you have not demonstrated to me that you understand the relevant policies required to use rollback properly, so I am not comfortable granting you access to the tool at this time. Please carefully review WP:AGF, WP:EW, and WP:VAN, make 50 or so reverts, and re-reqeust the tool. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your characterization of my record borderline offensive. My unedited and unarchived talk page aggregates every single comment I have received in 8 years on Wikipedia, including two (2) accusations of edit warring, meaning that 0.014% of my edits have been challenged. The first was utterly spurious and made by a user who was blocked shortly thereafter. The second was made after I reverted two (2) times, over 24 hours apart, to restore sourced content that was deleted with no explanation; see here for the tedious details.
So here's a simple challenge to you if you're still worried by the vast amounts of havoc I'll be able to wreck by reverting edits with a single click instead of two: find a single revert of mine that clearly violates the three policies you cite. Good luck! Jpatokal (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done With permission of User:Fastily, after I reviewed Talk:Joseon Dynasty/Archive 2#Review of content changes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:CRRaysHead90

I requested this right after my unban in June cause I have it on the Simple English Wikipedia and am trusted with it there. I was denied due to my ban just ending. Now it's been roughly four months since my unban and am requesting it again. I'm trusted with it on another wiki. I have a need for it here. I know how to use it properly. CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 23:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) unban discussion here mysterytrey (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 06:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AJona1992

I have been fighting vandalism on articles relating to Bad Girls Club. If I am not granted with this, can someone rollback the recent edits made by an IP? Thanks Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: You were recently blocked for sockpuppetry. What has changed since then? What measures have you taken to ensure that you will not repeat such behavior in the future? -FASTILY (TALK) 05:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well while I was blocked for a month I began thinking about my actions. At first, I didn't want to come clean and was very immature of the way I handled the situation. I gave sincere apology messages to User:Belovedfreak and accepted editing restrictions to come back and edit peacefully within the community. I can tell you right now that I will NOT do sock ever again, I love Wikipedia and editing here too much to be block from it. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basalisk

Hi. I'm involved in counter-vandalism and have been recent changes patrolling for a while. Rollback permissions would make me more effective, and would also enable me to use Huggle to get through more vandalism edits. Thanks. basalisk (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplewowies

I have quite a few edits under my belt (1158, 809 in article namespace), and recently, I have been reverting more and more vandalism (at last check, I had reverted/undone edits approx. 178 times in all my time here). Most (if not all) of those are for articles in my watchlist or that I am interested in. I feel I would be more effective at reverting vandalism if I were able to use rollback. Thank you. :) Purplewowies (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hamham31

I was requested here once before, and I've been rejected. I reverted many articles now, and I want this rollback tool to focus more on the articles that contains vandalism. Twinkle is a big help, but recently I installed Huggle tool which required rollback rights. So that's why I'm taking this opportunity to grant the tool and I'll promise that I will use this tool properly. Hamham31Heke! 07:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You still have little to no vandalism reverts. I reviewed a number of recent reverts you made, and it does not appear that you understand what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. Also, please review WP:NFC and WP:IUP. A number of your recent uploads are copyright violations. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bob Re-born

I had both reviewer and rollback rights on my previous account Simple Bob (talk · contribs), but unfortunately due to a botched password change I lost control of the account. My new account has been established a few days and I would like to pick up where I left off. Hopefully it should be easy for an admin to ascertain that I am the user formerly known as Simple Bob Bob Re-born (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for rollback. Pending changes is currently inactive and admins are not handing out the reviewer right. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chillllls

I have been active on Wikipedia for six months and have over 1000 edits, the majority of which are reverting vandalism and making vandalism warnings, often using the vandalism utility STiki and occasionally using Twinkle. I have an understanding of what does and does not constitute vandalism. I would like to have the rollback permission to more effectively combat vandalism. Chillllls (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 06:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pearll's sun

Should help me to optimize my time spent on rollback's Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 09:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on rollback, but your signature does not match your user name. See the advice in WP:Signatures:

Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors.

Please consider fixing this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fixed my Signature :) Pearll'sSunTALK 17:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 19:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:R000t

Twinkle's a tad slow. On weekends it's fine but during the day I can't keep up! Huggle seems like it'd be a tad faster. I am r000t (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abhijay

Reason for requesting rollback I have been on Wikipedia for a while now, making a total of 1000 edits, most of which has been reverting vandalism. I know that previously, my request for one was rejected due to the fact that I hadn't made some efforts into combatting vandalism, but now, I have been in the fight against vandalism, and have reverted multiple disruptive edits. I would want the rollback feature to help combat against vandalism even more further. Rendőrség - Magyar (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment): No comment on rollback, but your signature does not match your user name. See the advice in WP:Signatures:Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 02:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@MelbourneStar This would be better brought up on the User talk page. Mlpearc powwow 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have changed the signature to my User name. (Abhijay (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wagino 20100516

I am a fairly active editor with more 4.350 articles resighting now on Indonesian Wikipedia and want to contribute in fighting vandalism here, but I need the equipment to facilitate the work. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to lack of experience; for the moment, you can try WP:Twinkle or WP:Lupin, which make fighting vandalism faster. Also, please, always remember to warn the vandals you revert. In a couple of weeks, do come back and apply for rollback again. Happy editing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, next time I would probably suggest it again. Cheers. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spidey665

Hi, I have come back for a fourth time. Yes, you all know I have been blocked, but the policy was not mentioned at all before I was blocked, and now I think I am ready to become a rollbacker after enough vandal-fighting. Spidey665 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policies you were blocked for were mentioned several times before you were blocked. See the discussions/timestamps at User_talk:Spidey665/Archive_3. only (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)At here, you were advised of the policy. At here, you were blocked, and you requested to be unblocked, stating "Sorry, but I did not know that. I will just read the policy", the administrator noting that you were competently advised. Here (12 years, 7 months and 27 days ago), after you were unblocked and stated youd read the policy, you still were editing the way that got you blocked (meaning you lied to an administrator). (12 years, 7 months and 20 days) ago, here, you continued to receive warnings. Im not sure you have the right conception of vandalism. Here, you reverted the sandbox although they left the line alone, here, you reverted 5+ edits, which I wouldnt classify as vandalism, but disruptive editing or honest, uninformed attempts to help, and how is this a test edit? You warned him for it? How does that appear to be nonconstructive? We are supposed to assume good faith, which you clearly dont do if you read the second to last sentence of this. Please respond. mysterytrey talk 04:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Doing Vandal patrolling and rollbacking is likely produce comments from people you revert. I have had reasons to ask you to moderate your tone on Wikipedia discussions, and I'm not convinced you have a level of maturity to deal with such issues and discuss them in an adult manner. We deal with everyone here from children to university professors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to qualify my rationale: The comment was addressed at Spidey, not to others who had commented. My apologies if it was not clear. My concerns are that the candidate for the user right does not have a mature approach to his dialogue with others, and tends to use the Wikipedia as a media for social discussion. This does not instil confidence for his use of the rollback tool and the way he will address any fallout that it causes. I'm sure that given time he will be able to address these issues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JeffJ

Huggle is requiring that I have Rollback JeffJ (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 23:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Student7

Please restore. Had this permission until today. I have found it useful over the past five years when encountering vandalism or newbie edits - for the latter, I have found the AGF rollback handy as well Student7 (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've never had this permission. What are you talking about? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I think he's referring to yesterday, when 1.18 was released and Twinkle broke. Student7, Twinkle is not the same as rollback, although they are very similar. →Σ ⚑  ☭  23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see from the user permissions log where Student7 previously had rollback rights. Perhaps I'm mkissing something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Σ's assessment makes sense. Twinkle functionality has been restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=454175641"