Jump to content

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 RyJones (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 11 June 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rollback (add request)

Shortcuts

User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද

I would like to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit. Pasindu Kavinda  Talk 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Sorry but you don't have any real experience of reversion / vandal fighting. I suggest you use WP:UNDO for now. Pedro :  Chat  12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me a chance and i will do the best for wiki...Pasindu Kavinda  Talk 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) - You may find that requesting flags not needed or eligible for will hinder or delay receiving them when appropriate, you have made three request within 24 hrs. Please re-evaluate your need for these permissions and obtain the requirements, then re-apply. Thank you for your interest in helping the community. Mlpearc powwow 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pedro. You're definitely going to need more experience before you can be trusted with the rollback tool. That said, 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. One you have done that, come back and request the tool again. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) On a completely related note, the user's contributions looks like he or she's made a request for every other permission on Wikipedia (at least that I can think of). --The Σ talkcontribs 01:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)If I am reading this right, this user's home Wiki is si.wikipedia [1]) where they have over 2,500 edits, though there is no SUL. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z4ngetsu

I believe that the ability to use rollback would improve my capacity for correcting vandalism. Z4ngetsu (talk) 01:29, 8 June 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. One you have done that, come back and request the tool again. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Torchwoodtwo

I used to edit under the name Torchwoodwho until an unsuccessful RFA. I decided to take a wikibreak and scrambled my password so I wouldn't get tempted to come back before I was ready... well, I lost that password. I'm requesting rollback so I can regain my access to huggle and pick up where I left off. I believe Fastily was the editor who approved me previously. Thank you. Torchwoodtwo (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adamrce

I've been spending extra-time, at night (American sleeping time), reviewing and tracking vandals' contribution and making sure that the vandaled articles are reverted to the cleanest revision; however, reviewing was recently cancelled, so I'll be mostly working on vandals. I've used TW for sometime, but I think HG will help me perform more achievements. Also, I've realized how effective it is to provide the IP-owner-tag to continues IP vandals. ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: You were blocked about a month ago for edit warring. What has changed since then? If granted rollback, what measures will you take to ensure that you do not use the tool to gain an upper-hand in future content disputes? -FASTILY (TALK) 09:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I regret being in an edit-war back-then (I was removing a misleading content when the other editor refused to discuss it). I've learned from that incident that tagging is more polite, while it also informs the reader that there's a dispute. I've been more flexible since then, and started to give more time to discussions (especially with newcorner violators). Even my editing percentage is now mostly talk-pages, instead of mostly articles.
I prefer not to use a tool/authority when I'm not sure about my decision (or knowledge). As an example, when I'm not positive that an edit is a vandel, I use "TW rollback" with a note, instead of "TW vandal rollback". Also, I use to refuse to make a decision with my reviewer rights when I wasn't sure. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That'll do. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All thanks to you :). ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thepoliticalmaster

I have probably no chance of getting this but I've been using Twinkle so far to rollback vandalism and I have heard that Huggle is quicker and easier to do this from the IRC channel but I need to have rollback privileges in order for this to happen. Would you please at least be able to give me some advice of how many more edits and how much more time I should be fighting vandalism for Wikipedia for. Thanks a lot. :-) --Thepoliticalmaster PoliMasterTalk @ 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Have you edited under another account. Most users don't turn up and start editing their .js on the first edit [2] Pedro :  Chat  14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of years back, I had an account and it just wasn't used but I used to do things regularly then. Couldn't remember the username so I just created another account. Thanks! :-) --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! In answer to your question you've been making good use of undo (but calling another editor a twat in an edit summary - however provoked you feel is not a good idea); however you're really only been active today. Give it a few days of consistent use of Twinkle and I'd be happy to add the flag. Pedro :  Chat  14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote 'If twat wants to remove his that is up thim as it would be against policy for me to remove it!' - with keyboard errors I meant to actually write - 'If that guy wants to remove his that is up to him as it would be against policy for me to remove it!. I'll apologise to him and he can trout me! Thanks anyway. How many edits do yout hink that I should make? Oh and how many days of use of Twinkle?

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair expalnation. It's not really a number of edits as such just a bit of tenure and of course accuracy (which you seem to have). Usual guide for me is around 40 - 50 good uses of undo but also at least 5/7 days of editing. Other admins may have other standards of course. Pedro :  Chat  14:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)But 'h' is so far away from 'w'... --The Σ talkcontribs 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re chat on your tapk page with Jamesq :if you dont want me to obtain the Rollback function, even though it would have been easier to deal with the vandalism, I dont want to cause a problem. I did wanna be heplful. Cheers.--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Sorry, I should've clarified... --The Σ talkcontribs 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What, about the non admin influence? --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And closing as  Not done per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)[3] --The Σ talkcontribs 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily please remove that because I was still waiting for a reply from Pedro.--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is a decline at the present time. Give it a week or so and pop back. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  07:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Safety Cap

I've been on vandalism patrol for over a year using Twinkle---it was pointed out to me that Rollback would make the job easier. Anything to help give me an a edge over the griefers would be appreciated. Safety Cap (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pedro :  Chat  18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gavin.perch

I think using Igloo and/or Huggle to Revert/Rollback vandalism is much Easier & Faster than Twinkle, and will allow me to Revert/Rollback vandalism faster. I was told that Rollback would make the job easier in fight vandalism. Gavin Perch talkcontribs 03:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signature thief!!! Approximate time of theft: 1:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC). --The Σ talkcontribs 04:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not like me having your signature format, you just could have said so instead of making a big issue about it. -Format Removed- Gavin.perch (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done He was being sarcastic by the way :P -FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z4ngetsu

I know I am new to Wikipedia (at least in terms of editing), but recently I have been patrolling the recent changes page. I have been using Twinkle to revert vandalism, but I think that the ability to use rollback, and therefore Huggle, would allow me to be more effective in antivandalism attempts. Z4ngetsu (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shaad lko

To improve counter-vandalism efforts via Huggle - I have been reverting vandalism whenever I come across it! Thanks. Shaad lko (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably add here that I am relatively new to WP - however, I have been using Twinkle to good effect, and hopefully will use the Rollback right (if granted) in the right spirit. More so, since I spend almost all my time online :) Shaad lko (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Hi. You are doing a good job, but it seems to me that your vandalism-warning messages are escalating too quickly. For example: from level 1 to level 3, straight to level 3, straight to level 3, straight to level 2. Also, it wasn't 100% clear to me that this was vandalism, as opposed to simply "unexplained content removal". I think Wikipedia:Assume good faith is relevant here. This is just my non-admin opinion; maybe others will disagree. —Tommyjb Talk! (04:33, 10 June 2011)
(Non-administrator comment) What's wrong with escalating warnings too quickly? I almost always skip level one (mainly because level 1s give a tl;dr impression). --The Σ talkcontribs 05:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) My reasoning is that, in general, an opening message like "Welcome to Wikipedia. Your edit did not appear to be unconstructive and has been reverted" seems more likely to encourage good behaviour than an opening message like "Please refrain from constructive edits" or "Stop vandalising or you may be blocked" — even in cases of obvious vandalism. —Tommyjb Talk! (05:32, 10 June 2011)
(Non-administrator comment) But most registered accounts that vandalise are vandalism-only accounts. And still, level 1 gives a tl;dr impression. --The Σ talkcontribs 06:12, 10 June 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) 07:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will be back soon ! By the way, regarding the point raised by Tommyjb, this was not only an "unexplained content removal" but also merged two different sections, which deteriorated the article content significantly. Anyhow, thanks for the prompt responses. Shaad lko (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prunesqualer

Hi could I please have access to rollback, which would enable me to use “Huggle” software, and possibly make anti-vandalism patrolling a little easier. Thanks. Prunesqualer (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Looks like you've been busy. The first thing I've noticed is you have not one single warning to the editors of your reverts. Warning the editor after reverting vandalism and other situations is just as important as the revert itself, and is very easy with the tool Twinkle. I also have concerns about some of your reverts, could you please explain how you determined theses edits to be vandalism ? [4] [5] Mlpearc powwow 13:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the first instance [6] I simply noted that a user with an atrocious record re vandalism had increased a casualty statistic by a factor of 10 without any explanation or citation to back this up. In the second instance [7] I did a little basic research and satisfied myself that the 1933 dates where correct. You will also note that the vandalised/incorrect version placed the proposal of the amendment 66 years later than it’s ratification. As for issuing warnings, to be honest I’m not convinced of their usefulness, since time after time I come across user pages filled with warnings which have been ignored. Prunesqualer (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that fussed about the warnings (although they should be given IMO) however I do have a minor concern over the historical block and it being an ARBCOM enforcement. However you reverts seem to be well away from that field so I'm minded to grant the right as WP:AGF - therefore  Done Pedro :  Chat  15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect information added to an article does not constitute vandalism, also it does not matter if an editor heeds the warnings given, multiple warnings gives way to blocking, so they are very useful. Lastly, I disagree with Pedro's granting of your right, I feel this user has issues to work through before I would be comfortable with this user having the Rollback bit. Mlpearc powwow 16:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. Blatantly incorrect information like this [8] is vandalism. I'm not American, but frankly even a basic education would permit one to know that prohibition was not likely to be connected to the year 1999. As for the 34th February ...... I leave that to you to explain why it's not vandalism. I also note the candidate even used the word "possible" in the edit summary thus mitigating any sting. I appreciate your observations but the rollback right is trivial in comparison to others. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where in my comment do I say that "Blatant" insertion of incorrect information is not vandalism ? and a seemingly AGF edit of a wrong date is hardly vandalism. Mlpearc powwow 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say blatant. I do. 34th February? That's vandalism, not good faith. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zangar

I generally patrol pages through my watchlist and tackle vandalism manually (ensuring to give appropriate warnings), but sometimes I come across instances where multiple reversions are needed and Rollback would help greatly for this. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Rollback can only revert edits by 1 user. If /b/tard4 and /b/tard5 teamed up to vandalise an article, Rollback would revert 1 vandalised revision to another vandalised revision, so, in that case, Twinkle would be more helpful. WP:ROLL for more details. --The Σ talkcontribs 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand. I may move on to a tool at some point, but I'd like a simpler way to revert multiple cases by a single vandal. Zangar (talk) 18:42, 10 June 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) 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'm a little puzzled that you need to show recent experience - surely evidence of long-term (if albeit less frequent) appropriate vandalism fighting shows better adherence to policies and guidlines. If you check my last 50 User talk page edits you'll see that over half of them were warnings for vandalism/inappropriate editting (and obviously I would have carried the reversions out myself). Can I respectfully ask for a rethink, or further explaination, to my decline as I feel I have met loose requirement of "demonstrat[ing] an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism". Thanks, Zangar (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Become a dedicated antivandalism drone for a few days. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wilbur2012

Found rollback function a good way to revert vandalism Wilbur2012(talk) 18:36, 10 June 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) 19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nemesis63

I believe that rollback, and its associated software (Huggle), would aid me invaluably in my effort to fight and reverse vandalism. Nemesis63 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)I find the lack of warnings disturbing. --The Σ talkcontribs 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not fussed over warnings. An editor with this tenure and 3,500 or so edits is almost certainly going to get the rollback flag unless they've recently had a block for edit warring or something. Σ - we don't expect perfection, the rollback permission is trivially removed if abused and not capable of doing so much damage that it should not be reasonably liberally granted to tenured editors.  Done Pedro :  Chat  19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:RyJones

As a former user of VandalProof, I humbly request rollback so that I may use huggle to undo vandalism. Ry Jones (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=433675609"