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 Valley2city (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 18 January 2010 (→‎User:Songrit: Not done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rollback (add request)

User:Songrit

I hope that huggle/rollback permission would make my anti-vandalism contributions faster. Currently I am using MWT. Songrit (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain your previous request for rollback as seen here? I also don't see any warnings on user talk pages of vandals after you reverted vandalism. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 06:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous request was made for research purposes. As I said there, I am doing research on vandalism detection and thus I want to survey on the current methods being used. Since, it was not granted, I have to evaluate it in some other way. I found that twinkle and MWT are doing fine but they are kind of slow. That is why I request the right again. Also I think reverting bad edit is a way to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't put the comments on talk page because they are mostly anonymous users. I think it is pointless to warn them. Songrit (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Even anonymous users need to be warned. Warning users is a way to track vandalism patterns and to take corrective action as necessary and most users who vandalize, whether registered or IPs, need to be warned. As Tiptoety indicated when you previously requested it, research isn't really a sufficient reason to grant rollback. However, reverting vandalism is. That being said, I appreciate your reverts of vandalism so far, but I need to ascertain that you can give proper warnings before I can grant the rollback bit. Seeing as I have not seen any sort of warning, I cannot grant rollback at this time. Valley2city‽ 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul2387

I would like to be able to use Huggle, I have been using Twinkle, AWB and Friendly. Paul2387 12:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I fail to see enough recent anti-vandalism work to warrent granting you the tools. If you continue to use Twinkle to revert vandalism, you could get rollback in a few weeks. (X! · talk)  · @790  ·  17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajraddatz

For use with Huggle, I was going to wait a while longer until I saw some of the below request. I do occasionally make mistakes, as does everyone, but I also have considerable counter-vandalism experience on Wikia. Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:pilif12p

Been using Twinkle to revert vandalism for a little while. Will not abuse the privilege if given. -Tanner (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 03:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Macbookair3140

I have undid many vandals and I won't misuse this tool if I get it. macbookair3140 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 03:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MissAlyx

For using Huggle. Most of my edits on en.wiki are reverting RecentChanges vandalism when nobody else seems to be around. –  MissAlyx  talk  01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 03:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kilonum

For use with Huggle Kilonum (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, per your previous vandal-fighting experience. Best, JamieS93 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:el3ctr0nika

I revert any vandalism I see on my watchlist and this would make my life a bit easier. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I see you have made a lot of very valuable contributions to the project, but you don't seem to have made very many reverts. If you would like the tool, I'd recommend enabling twinkle going to Special:RecentChanges and making 50 or so reverts, before coming back. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saqib Qayyum

I do not want to see vandalism on Wikipedia thats why I choose to make some efforts to minimize on-going vandalism. Saqib talk 08:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 15:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minimac94

For reverting vandalism. I was removed from rollback last time because of bad use of Huggle. Now I use Twinkle and it really helps me concentrate on what edits are vandalism and what isn't. Minimac94 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Nancy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently revoked your rollback, I suggest you bring this matter up with her. Tiptoety talk 07:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being discussed at User talk:Nancy#Rollback re-request. Nancy talk 09:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done following Minimac94's agreement that Huggle will not be used[1]. Nancy talk 15:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Don4of4

Reverted a decent amount of vandalism and I would like to have the rollback permission to help. (and to use with huggle) Don4of4 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Not enough edits. Give it about 2 or 3 weeks at Special:RecentChanges reverting vandalism and be sure to use appropriate warnings with vandals. upstateNYer 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:clarince63

Rollbacking will help me a lot in revering vandalism with Huggle. --Clarince63 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Histroical issues and decline noted but highly active and accurate. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:enti342

For use of Huggle. Enti342 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks for your work. JamieS93 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:- )

I would like to be able to use Huggle. :- ) (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 04:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SGH2010

Reason for requesting rollback SGH2010 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am seeking to upload images which I have copyright to on a page

Hi, in order to do that you need to be autoconfirmed. You can take a look at the specifics of what you need to be able to do that at that link. Meanwhile, since this isn't a request for rollback,  Not done. Valley2city‽ 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


User:RoadieRich

Majority of my edits are to remove vandalism. Rollback would make this considerably easier. RoadieRich (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, but I see less than 20 edits total, and half of those were in May of 2008. You need considerably more experience with Wikipedia and particularly vandal-fighting before we give out rollback. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 19:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hornlitz

I have reverted edits for the past few days, and I would like to begin using Huggle for faster reverting. Hornlitz (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reverts and warnings look good so far but I don't see any submissions to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. I'd like to see some good AIV reports before I grant rollback. Valley2city‽ 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Valley2city's concern however, is still a valid one. Please read WP:VAN and start making reports to WP:AIV as necessary. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tntdj

I would like to help out! For example, I discovered extant vandalism on World currency and I would like to revert the multiple vandalism edits to the known good state. I think I must be one of few editors working on some of the more obscure articles I watch. Cheers! Tntdj (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Thanks for your interest, but I notice you have only started engaging in anti-vandalism activities since yesterday. I'd like to see you get in at least another sustained week of anti-vandalism activity before coming back, should you still want the tool. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timotheus Canens

Alt account of Tim Song (talk · contribs). Main account already has rollback. Timotheus Canens (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The only possible concern would be impersonation, but it seems very unlikely from your contributions. decltype (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would have to have created an account impersonating myself. Timotheus Canens (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was looking for that evidence.. in all the wrong places :) decltype (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Az29

I'd like heavier firepower for reverting vandalism. Az29 (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - So far your reverts look fine, that said your account was created only yesterday. I would like to see at least a week go by before you are granted rollback. Tiptoety talk 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebigfan

I want the rollback feature to make reverting the vandalism a lot more easier. I edit mainly the articles on video games and cartoon shows and I occasionally find vandalism on these page pages. I have been on here for over a year, so do you think that I could have the rollback feature? User:Thebigfan (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got confused when I saw that your last edit was in May of last year but then I noticed that you've been editing both as User:Thebigfan and User:Thebigfan2. First of all I'm confused for which account you are requesting rollback. Also I'm curious why you decided to create a second account and linked it to the old account? Meanwhile, I only notice a handful of reversions of vandalism but no warnings on user pages nor reports to AIV. If someone vandalizes wikipedia, once you revert the edit, in the vast majority of cases you also need to put a templated warning on their talk page and I don't see any from you. With Rollback you need to know how to use warning templates and I have no way to determine you know how to use them. Also I like to see a potential rollbacker demonstrate reporting users who continue to break the rules past a final warning to AIV. So for now,  Not done. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:bayxsonic

I often find errors in blocked articles, like "brith" instead of "birth" in Roselyn Sánchez Bayxsonic (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change in that article. Meanwhile, It is not rollback for which you are looking, that is a different feature entirely. In order to edit semi-protected articles like Roselyn Sánchez you need to be a bit more established, so for the time being please look for articles that don't have the little padlock (the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia can be edited by anybody) and happy editing! Rollback  Not doneValley2city‽ 06:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supertouch

I deal with some relatively obscure corners of Wikipedia and am therefore sometimes the first on the scene of vandalism--or due to the obscurity of the topic, the first to notice it. Supertouch (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Not seeing tons of vandalism, but you're a long-time user with significant mainspace edits, a clean block log, and a pretty good talk page, so I'm fine giving it out. Remember, it's only for obvious cases of intended vandalism. You may also want to try using more edit summaries. Cheers! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nickliverpool

ive never done anything bad on wiki! either with this profile or i.p address!! only good edits, have a look :D now i've read all hte other cases, i think i will safely say i wont get a yes? a month solid of pure un-vandilisim, that sounds difficult!! i have a job, but i guess i could try!! Nickliverpool (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You don't have very much anti-vandalism experience at this time. If you want the tool, please start editing more actively and making about 50 reverts with twinkle or the undo function or so before coming back. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronz

I'm a very active editor. This would be very helpful with the larger cases of spamming and vandalism that I regularly work on. See "Spam links" discussion on my talk. Ronz (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wildy comfortable giving this out as an arbcom case will likely be filed following the thread at AN/I where you were involved for what seems to be edit warring over an extended period of time. Still, I admit to not having followed it nor having read it very closely, so if another sysop feels it would be appropriate go wild. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations of me edit-warring are against situations where I held to 1RR, which was pointed out in the ANI. 1RR is my preferred use of undo. Other than BLP and blatant vandalism, I'll tag after 1RR, and have made the {{Linkspam}} template to use for such situations with disputed external links.
I don't plan on using rollback for anything even remotely so controversial. Rather, mass-vandalism, mass-spamming, and cleanup situations where others only cleaned up a portion of the problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Looking through your recent history, I don't see much evidence of major anti-vandalism work. Not only that, but most of the recent reverts you have been making pertain to only one editor, Tzahy (talk · contribs), who you seem to be having a dispute with. Unfortunately, I must agree with Amorymeltzer that for your purposes, the undo function will suffice for now. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Little grape

I'm fairly active, often concentrating on sniffing out BLP COI edits by persons very close to the subject. Rollback would be useful in speeding this work. Thanks Little grape (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a lot of straight-up vandalism reverts in your history, and definitely not since your block one month ago. I'd stick with the custom edit summaries for now. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Per Amory. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rymich13

I am active in editing Government Officials pages. Having the rollback feature would be very useful for me in helping to revert vandalism on these pages. rymich13 (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Not enough experience at this point in the game. I recommend editing for about a month (solidly), then coming back and re-requesting the flag. Tiptoety talk 09:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I also though might add though I have been on wikipedia for now a good three and a half years now and also what do you consider solid editing? rymich13 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of edits. Your history shows little use of WP:UNDO (the only cases I see are you undoing your own edits) and virtually no use of edit summaries. To get rollback, you should:
  1. Actively fight vandalism with some regularity
  2. Use appropriate edit summaries when reverting (If it's an obvious vandalism revert, "rvv" would be acceptable, but otherwise you need to provide an explanation)
  3. Warn vandals and report them to WP:AIV if they continue vandalizing after a final warning
WP:TWINKLE provides most of the functionality of Rollback without requiring the privileges and helps with all the tasks above. You might want to try it out. If you like it, you might not need the permissions. If you feel constrained by it after a while, you can reapply with some vandal fighting history under your belt. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NerdyScienceDude

I am an active contributor with 500+ edits who would find the rollback feature useful since I revert LOTS of vandalism. I mainly use Twinkle to revert vandalism, but this would be quicker and easier to use to remove blatant vandalism. --NerdyScienceDude :) (click here to talk to me) 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks for your work. JamieS93 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mkativerata

I am an active editor, particularly in the area of Malaysian politics. In this area there is not much oversight of a number of pages, and vandalism is not uncommon. I have undone a fair bit vandalism there recently and believe this tool would help me to continue to deal with it. I would use it with caution, only for blatant vandalism - I exercise the "undo" feature with caution as well. Mkativerata (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Even though I don't see a lot of anti-vandal work in your recent contribs, given that you're a long-time productive editor with a cautious attitude toward reverting edits, I'm happy to grant this request. JamieS93 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaximilianT

I have been editing wikipedia for the past three months. I've created some articles and have also been involved in patrolling recent changes using twinkle for the past 15 days. Having the permission to use the rollback tool would speed up the whole process of patrolling recent changes etc. MaximilianT (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:95jb14

I would find this tool very useful in removing blatant vandalism and also for work on discussions. In the past I have also been a recent change patroller, so I feel it would be a useful tool for this. 95jb14 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89

Had it at SimpleWikipedia for awhile now. Reported a couple people to AIV, undid many vandals, and reported several warnings Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the circumstances surrounding this please? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. A talk page issue...somebody didn't like that I started a few threads Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent the situation. –xenotalk 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was for their repeated changing of the importance ratings that a WikiProject (of which they does not hold membership) had set for Talk:Lincoln (see Talk:Lincoln#Removal of project designation), but they used edit summaries in doing so, so I don't think this should preclude Pbp's receiving rollback as long as they know it is not to be used for stuff like that. –xenotalk 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a call on this? It's been three days without comment Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - This tool is not a big deal, but note that while it is easy come, it is also easy go. Any abuse or misuse will result in it being revoked without warning. Tiptoety talk 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=338513567"