I'm told I can't properly take up the anti-vandalism fight until I have these rights? While I have plenty of other ways I can contribute to Wikipedia, I have an interest in helping with the vandalism fight. I dont pretend to be the best wikipedian out there, but I always strive to abide by Wikipedia's expectations in me. I have Autopatroller and Reviewerrights, if that is any indication to you on how much I can be trusted. Wikiian08:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Strong Support - User has a long list of very contructive edits, and shows a need for rollbacker. In the meantime, if you have not already done so, may I suggest Twinkle?Frozen4322 : Chat 12:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is twinkle a program that is downloaded or used from Wikipedia? and can this program be used without rollback rights? Wikiian00:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a huge contributer to the K&A Gang page amongst others. Making sure all the information is sourced and verifiable. However, there has been vandalism from person(s) in the Philadelphia area in order to removed a certain public figure known as John Berkery from the page. This person is well-documented by reputable media sources for involvement with the subject of the article. This same IP adress has been making a series of edits to remove the mentioning of the aforementioned criminal figure. I have manually reverted the vandalism. But I doubt that this campaign to stricken the page will cease anytime soon. Therefore, I'm requesting the ability to rollback these harmful and unproductive edits. LokiHavok (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Weak Oppose - Not enough experience in my opinion, have you tried a tool called Twinkle. It provides many more tools that work much like rollbacker privileges. Frozen4322 : Chat 12:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I'm sorry, but you have insufficient experience in vandalism fighting for the rollback tool.--v/r - TP16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Malik, I'd wish you'd have pushed the button instead of offering a support. I've reviewed the contribs and I have trouble completing this request based on a lack of experience with vandalism fighting. I'll leave it open for a 3rd administrator opinion.--v/r - TP16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you TP. I think, StevenJ81, the efforts you've put in are a great start, but there have only been a handful in the past few months. I'd suggest trying out a few more months with a concerted effort if you really have the interest, or at least continuing to make the solid contributions you have been thus far. Make sure you also revert to a good version! ~ Amory (u • t • c)06:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! The IP in question was adding citations to multiple articles, the contents of the citations appearing to be works by members of the academic institute the IP was registered to. The only one I really had that much knowledge in was the Google Search article, so I decided to take a look. On checking the citations, they were not particularly coherent in covering the points they were used to clarify. I felt the additions were not completely necessary, and skirting on self-reference (I cannot positively affirm this, as I don't know who was using the IP). They'd also cited the content each time, and not using a citation format. Finally, the URL itself doesn't actually point to the document, and I had to break it up and use the search function for the site to find the referenced content. After my first removal, I planned on checking the source content, and then re-adding it with refname format, but I decided against the quality of the source, and the need for it in some circumstances. When re-added by the IP, I reverted again. Agreed, I was probably a little harsh in my summary, and my conclusion regarding the lack of necessity/ quality of the source may have been flawed. However, I made the judgement call on the basis of the extract provided by the site hosting the paper, the possible self-referencing by the author, and the questionable title of the piece. Anyway, hope that clears things up! drewmunntalk17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reading that again, and looking back at the edits today, I'd probably not class it as vandalism. It was more edit warring. My mistake; as I said I was a over-harsh with my second summary (bad day at the office), and incorrectly classed it as vandalism. Sorry! drewmunntalk19:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I've seen a couple more that also weren't vandalism so let's give you a month to work on it and then you can come back here and request again. For now, though, I'm going to mark this as Not done.--v/r - TP19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to have the rollback feature due to me wanting to revert vandalism easier, as I have seen and reverted vandalism multiple times already. David. S06:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done--v/r - TP 16:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done I'm sorry, but you have insufficient experience in vandalism fighting for the rollback tool.--v/r - TP 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
