I have done some reverting vandalism in geography related articles in past few weeks around 40 events.I've been using twinkle but it works somehow in dryasdust way.If you take a little look on my contributions,you'll find the reason of requesting this permission.I would like to use huggle because it works comparatively better and easy to handle vandalism.I Assure you to proper use of this permission.Thank You. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣16:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Please don't take this not done decision negatively. I'm just concerned about whether you perfectly understand what is vandalism and what is not vandalism. Some of the edits you have identified as vandalism (for examples, this one, this, this, and this) could have been treated in a nicer way - you could have undone the edits after checking whether sources existed for the claims; and in case sources did not exist, you could have advised the concerned editors to add sources. Reverting anyone's edit by identifying it as vandalism is one that should be done very carefully. This is not to say that all your anti-vandal edits are mistaken. Most of them are really on the dot. But you should perhaps be fully confident of yourself before taking up the rollback right. Kindly read up on what is Vandalism and what is not vandalism. You're doing good work. Please continue to do so and come back in a few days to request this right again; or request me directly on my talk page. Again, don't let this refusal put you down. Best. WifioneMessage11:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted 50+ edits via RC, show an understanding of what is vand and what is good faith, currently have Reviewer, and I also patrol NPP. Mysterytrey22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) - User has not made any counter vandalism reverts with programs and has only reverted 12 edits this year. Mysterytrey, what are you looking to gain from the user right if you do not use any programs? I suggest you use Twinkle for the time being. -- Cheers, Riley HuntleytalkNo talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here.22:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the ones without reverted in the edit summary have undid in the edit summary. Also, as an afternote, I have and still currently do used twinkle. I did, however, remove the ad that goes after edit summaries, as I was tired of having twinkle paraded around. Mysterytrey23:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I don't think you have enough experience to be trusted with rollback. I also saw that a fair amount of your edits are tagging pages for deletion.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up?23:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say that these are, with all due respect, incredibly silly reasons to object. Yes, they've done a lot of work tagging pages for deletion; I wasn't aware that "identifying and distinguishing between good and bad content" was a reason to deny someone rollback. No, most of their AV work hasn't been done with fully automated or semi-automated tools - and when rollback becomes either of those, I'm sure it will be relevant.
It's rollback. It's not adminship, it's not election to Congress, and it's not giving them the keys to the Tower of London. If they misuse it, we can remove it. In the meantime, in the absence of any legitimate reason to not give it to them, that's precisely what I'm doing. DoneIronholds (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Please don't take this not done decision negatively. I'm just concerned about whether you perfectly understand what is vandalism and what is not vandalism. Some of the edits you have identified as vandalism (for examples, this one, this, this, and this) could have been treated in a nicer way - you could have undone the edits after checking whether sources existed for the claims; and in case sources did not exist, you could have advised the concerned editors to add sources. Reverting anyone's edit by identifying it as vandalism is one that should be done very carefully. This is not to say that all your anti-vandal edits are mistaken. Most of them are really on the dot. But you should perhaps be fully confident of yourself before taking up the rollback right. Kindly read up on what is Vandalism and what is not vandalism. You're doing good work. Please continue to do so and come back in a few days to request this right again; or request me directly on my talk page. Again, don't let this refusal put you down. Best. Wifione Message 11:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Done Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)