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 Fastily (talk | contribs) at 07:39, 16 June 2011 (→‎User:Shrike: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Rollback (add request)


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 ? [1] [2] Mlpearc powwow 13:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the first instance [3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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]
Sorry, but I don't feel that just acting as a drone to ratchet up a higher recent anti-vandalism edit-count is in keeping with the ethos of editing Wikipedia and for that reason I'd rather not go down that route. I think that I am in the same boat as User:LordVetinari, who has rightfully been given the flag, and wants to use the tool for watchlist vandalism reversion. As far as I'm aware all my previous vandalism reversions have been correctly identified, I always leave the appropriate warning messages and I am always more than civil to fellow users. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My advice, in this case, would be to discuss the matter on Fastily's talk page. I perfectly understand your point of view, but since rollback gives access to tools such as Huggle, which can cause a good amount of damage if misused, even in good faith, we usually require that a user requiring this flag can show a good track record when it comes to fighting vandalism.

You seem to be a very trustworthy user, that's why I'd suggest you talk with Fastily, whom I know to be a very reasonable admin. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest, at least for now, that you use Lupin's Anti-vandal tool accompanied with Twinkle? Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Fastily has granted you rollback. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:37, 14 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]
I'll probably approve this, although the lack of more recent activity leaves me hesitant, before doing so though, I just wanted to ask you about warning vandals after reverting them. Are you aware of this practice? (Of course, Huggle would automate all of that) - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit I wasn't aware of the practice of warning vandals.Ry Jones (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be more diligent in warning vandals if you are granted rollback? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Montell 74

Hi. Since the early days of my first login i make vandalism reverts. Now there is a systematic attack of athletic sites over a long time by different IP's but in the same kind of permanent wrong edits. It's like a virus. The Rollback would help to make things easier. Montell 74 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: How do you feel about warning vandals ? and could you describe how this is vandalism ? [6]. Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 23:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
warning vandals is basic work. some users do just vandalism edits. in this case i often warn without saying "hallo, welcome". this IP user has done vandalism edits from the beginning of his edits. just changing times. no reference, no change of place and year. here you edit the revert i came to late. so "vandalism" given as reason for revert is not correct. in this special case both edited times are not correct as best times. i'm going to change it to the correct time with reference.Montell 74 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you need to start warning vandals, or you're not going to get the tool. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As i said, I do. Can't follow "need to start". Montell 74 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dough4872

Frequently remove vandalism or wrong edits from several articles Dough4872 02:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) User has little experience being an antivandalism drone. --The Σ talkcontribs 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not revert vandalism constantly, but would like to have the tool when it is needed as I sometimes come across a user who made multiple edits to an article that need to be reverted, which I currently have to do manually. Dough4872 03:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I would like to commend you for 32K edits with only 360 deleted. I think you can be trusted with Rollback :P Mlpearc powwow 04:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wnme

Hi, I have already experience in removing vandalism with several tools in the German Wikipedia of six month. Regards, Wnme (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:LordVetinari

I usually come across vandalism, test edits and other bad edits through my watchlist. When I do, I try to make sure that the vandal/tester receives the right warning as I'm well aware of AGF. I also keep the editor on my watchlist for a few days to check on their further edits. I'd like rollback to be able to more easily revert to a correct version, as well as possibly using Huggle. I believe my record of civility and consistent improvement demonstrates I can be trusted with the Rollback feature. I've split my time on WP between destubbing, NPPing, deorphaning, checking notability and on various other backlogs. Consequently, as my watchlist grows, so does the number of potential vandalisable articles I'm watching. BTW, for what its worth, it was me that fixed the recent test edit at Template:Wikipedia template messages (significant considering the number of transclusions and, thus, possible reverters). Incidentally, if I don't get the rollback feature, please give a thorough reason why as I'd value the feedback. Thank you. LordVetinari 15:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I'll try to use it sensibly. LordVetinari 03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lowercase Sigma

Surely my right (or maybe left, I can't tell) sock deserves rollback, as I prepare to separate my normal contributions from my Huggle contributions. --The Σ talkcontribs 06:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Since you're already a rollbacker, I don't see why this flag should not be given to your socks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


User:Nikthestoned

I'd like a message to be auto-populated when reverting multiple edits. Am also trying out a few of the tools available to Wikipedia and will therefore require this for Huggle. Nikthestoned 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Pedro :  Chat  11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nikthestoned 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:GaneshBhaktPublic

Alternate account of GaneshBhakt GaneshBhaktPublic (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you log in to your main account to confirm that this is your legitimate sock for me (I can't see that you've linked the two from the main account - if you already have, could you just give me the diff and accept my apologies). Ta. Pedro :  Chat  12:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Pedro! Dropped by to say hi! GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) beat me to it - that's  Done Pedro :  Chat  13:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thepoliticalmaster

I am making a second request for rollback as I want to use igloo and huggle and I keep getting beaten to the vandalism by those users using Huggle so it would be easier than hanging around on Recent Changes, I will also be very careful with the software and not abuse it as I understand that any edits made are from my account and I could be subject to a block with wrong use. The first time I requested it was said that my identification of vandalism was good and that I knew the difference between a good faith edit and vandalism, although I was using Rollback Vandalism on Twinkle, I didn't know what the Rollback AGF stood for! :-@ Also I have made a real effort to stop calling section blanking vandalism and have put the appropriate warnings on the page not just the standard vandalism one. Thanks a lot. :-) --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take good care with it. :)

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shrike

I like to help more then with just using TW Shrike (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 07:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=434547463"