Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

• Oopsemoops (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

My rollback perm will expire in a day or so, I was on the month long "trial." I am just writing in to see if I could be approved now for the perm to be added without expiration. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary rollback rights by Vanamonde93 (expires 23:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Any comments/concerns? -FASTILY 21:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I haven't done an exhaustive review yet, but among the most recent rollback uses, I found a couple of instances where rollback was used, where an edit-summary may have been more appropriate: [1], [2]. These aren't instances of egregious misuse, but based on these I would suggest another trial period. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's more of that? Because the misuse of rollback in Special:Diff/1117278739 led to an "I hate you" response from the reverted user, I stumbled upon this at AIV. This led to the discussion at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1117714855. My current tendency is towards "not done" rather than "redone for a trial", but if someone is willing to immediately offer another trial, I won't object. I'd object to indefinite granting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is reserved for clear cases of vandalism. Once in a blue moon I'll admit I may make a mistaken, but I ALWAYS follow up with a warning, and also self revert when and where appropriate. In the alleged, "misuse of rollback", you will note that I quickly copy edited the text to read better after the fact, but then the IP went on to vandalize my talk page with a comment of "I hate you." In the examples given above though, such as here here, and here, the first example is a clear act of vandalism (but the editor above cited the wrong diff), and the second example includes a less example, where a deliberate typo was introduced by an IP. I have made over 5,000+ edits, and 99% of the time will get it right with these, but there are certainly times when I get it wrong, and am happy to admit as such and self revert promptly. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add, that as a highly regular participant on the "Recent pages" patrol page, I enjoy the benefit that the "Rollback" perm gives me in terms of knowing whether an edit has already been reverted or not (by merely seeing if an edit is eligible for rollback or not). This is an additional benefit this tool confers to the bearer. I still always then click the edit open to a new tab, do a careful review, and proceed accordingly with either a rollback when an obvious and egregious instance of vandalism. Or a standard revert with edit summary when more appropriate. Either way, I ALWAYS then warn the editor in question after the fact, and do so with the appropriate templated drop down from Twinkle. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to revert vandalism, but would appreciate this tool/perm extended, as you can see here, this is a clear example of an edit just reverted that the rollback tool is helpful since it is an obvious vandalistic edit with no productive intent, here. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here, and countless more. It does appear to be and endless hoard at times, yet despite this, I maintain care, but that doesn't mean I don't make a mistake once in 100 edits or fewer. As I said though, I'll continue to work with the highest degree of care and appreciate the trust of the community. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it didn't take long before I ran into an editor that was introducing multiple deliberate typos consecutively (to find as an example) where RB is useful, both for speed, and the multiple punch defensive tooling for the encyclopedia seen here. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another I came across that I would have reverted with RB had I retained the RB perm at this time, just to show the types of edits that I feel are worthy of using RB on (though I'd of course then follow up with an appropriate warning in each and every single case). — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As described at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1117796193 now, my concerns are mostly alleviated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for another month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suryabeej (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Have been editing Wikipedia for a while now and want to fight the vandalism in here having this right will make things a lot easier for me, Thanks Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 12:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 12:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]