Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
Appearance
Rollback
- Ravenzing (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)
- Rollback would help me be more efficient in fighting hyperactive vandals. I know that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and that I had a request declined a couple weeks ago, but I am now extended confirmed and I have been very productive in RC patrol. I think my anti-vandalism record speaks for itself. Zing(Talk!) 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([1][2]). — MusikBot talk 01:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, admins know how to do our jobs. Your welcome to leave something on talkpages and talk there, but please don't spam PERM requests. Also collapse side commentary. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not done - I take issue with the continuous requests for this permission. You were declined twice over the span of less than a month, and almost immediately upon hitting 200 mainspace edits, you requested it for the third time. This is concerning to me because it gives the impression of hat collecting, which tarnishes almost any near-future requests for any permission. You have made 277 edits to mainspace in total. 269 were automated. That leaves eight non-automated edits. The 200 mainspace edits requirement is not to show that one can reach a number of edits, but instead that they are knowledgeable on how mainspace works, and to do that, you need to actually edit there. Granted, this is a request for counter-vandalism tools and much of your edits have been counter-vandalism, but I err on the side of caution for granting because you have not yet demonstrated an understanding on what is vandalism and what is not. Reverting this without an edit summary shows that you may not be familiar with BRD, a very important mainspace norm. Similarly, this is not vandalism and should not be reverted as such. That was an unsourced AGF edit and should have been undone under that pretense. This is not vandalism, and is in fact possibly factual, and this is another example of an improperly reverted non-vandalistic edit. Additionally, while giving no weight to the comments above from Eyebeller, the fact that you went on the offence immediately may give rise to concerns about temperament, which must be addressed because users with rollback must be able to explain any revert they make. I suggest not requesting this permission for a few months. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- EDG 543 (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)
- Hello. I, at the time of writing this, have the rollback right, but it is set to expire on October 16. I misused rollback when I used it to prevent someone from removing the notice of a sockpuppet investigation from their talk page. I thought that users weren't supposed to do that, but I was incorrect and was reprimanded by some more experienced editors. They recommended I looked over the policies for vandalism, etc. and then reapply once I have demonstrated that I can use it correctly. I have taken a good look at the policies and feel much more confident in my ability to use rollback correctly. You can look over my recent edits and you will see constant use of RedWarn, as well as rollback, without engaging in edit wars or doing such on talk pages. I hope that you see that I have learned from my mistake and grown from it and that you will reconsider me for this right. In case you were wondering, I have 3,572 edits through about 3 years of experience, which has grown significantly though the past month and a half, as I have more than 1,000 edits in that time frame. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary rollback rights by Cabayi (expires 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 13:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Terasail (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)
- I have been editing wikipedia for 5 months now and I feel as if I have got to understand the main wikipedia policies such as vandalism and copyright. I have recently spent a bit of time patroling recent changes, checking and undoing some edits made using Twinkle. I would like to be able to use tools huggle to do this task more efficiently. Terasail[Talk] 14:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Ravenzing request also collapsed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
-Moved my reply to Eyebeller onto my talk page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasail (talk • contribs) |
Done - I did see some reverts that should have had an edit summary (e.g. for test edits), but not enough to not grant for a month as a trial. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)