Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Please review Wikipedia:Rollback before making a request. Applicants with fewer than 200 mainspace edits are unlikely to be granted this right. More importantly, applicants must have a measurable track record of counter-vandalism and no recent history of edit warring. The counter-vandalism training program is available if you wish to gain experience in handling vandalism.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(I'm not an Administrator, this is just my opinion and represents no Administrator's view) As of writing, you have 268 mainspace edits - just above the absolute minimum recommended amount to request rollback rights. You are also just over a month old to Wikipedia, so are quite new. I have had a quick look through your contributions and your reverts seem to be corrrect most of the time. You were also warning users without any userscript in your first days of Wikipedia, which is pleasing to see. However, you have been told twice to earn more editing experience. I strongly advise for you to heed this advice you have been given, and to come back in a few months with a few thousand edits to your name showing some more experience. You can also enroll at the Counter Vandalism Agency which I think will help you a lot and increase your chances of getting rollback rights in the future. Eyebeller (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your highly visible commentary, Eyebeller. I‘m impressed that you registered your account 3 weeks ago and have already graduated to providing your opinions on the worthiness of various editors for certain requested user rights on this page. I’m also impressed by how quickly after registering you installed RedWarn. With such a solid grasp of Wikipedia, have you considered helping out new editors at the teahouse? Zing(Talk!)21:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Eyebeller, hello! Ravenzing looks good and has an excellent track record. However, we would like to see a couple of months worth of edits. I got my rollback perms at 3 months I believe! Eyebeller, I would not recommend commenting here as this is purely for administrators granting rights. If you must, address your concerns on the user's talk page. Happy editing! Mr. Heart(talk)03:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Heart. The reason I commented here is so that both the user can get some quick helpful advice and any potential Administrator's can see it when carrying out their review. I have seen quite a few other users do the same, here and on other request pages. I think this is fine. Am I missing something? Eyebeller (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to me that Eyebeller’s primary objective - given their comment here and on a prior request - is solely to point out and highlight what they perceive to be weaknesses in a thinly veiled attempt to influence reviewing administrators not to grant Rollback. I would ask anyone observing to consider the nature of Eyebeller’s commentary in the context of this exchange on their talk page. Zing(Talk!)10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ravenzing. What does that exchange have to do with my comments here? Another reason why I comment on some requests here, is because in some cases where the users edit count is way too low - it is almost certain and obvious that an Administrator will not grant Rollback rights to this user. As an Administrator may take a while to get to this request, I provide feedback to the user so they can get this feedback sooner than having to wait a few days for an Administrator to say a similar/the same thing. Eyebeller (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eyebeller. I have seen quite a few other users do the same, here and on other request pages. Could you please provide quite a few diffs (of non-admins leaving drive-by commentary on permission requests) over the course of your 17 day tenure? If you want to provide feedback to users applying for various user rights with the presumption that they won’t be granted, perhaps you should consider gaining the authority to grant or deny those user rights. Zing(Talk!)15:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am new and do not want to apply for Adminship, I am not at all ready. The comments do not have do be during the days I have been on Wikipedia.
Throughout the archives of this and other request pages, I have seen non-Administrators commenting on requests and I have outlined why I do so. Eyebeller (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(non-Administrator comment) Hi Terasail. I've had a look through your activity on Wikipedia. You have less than 400 edits in the mainspace (367 at the time of writing), which is a bit above the absolute minimum recommended to apply for a Rollback rights. Do you think this is enough to demonstrate enough experience in reverting edits?
You have also received a couple of edit reminders/warning, one in August which is fairly recent. Do you think you've learnt from what you were reminded/warned about? Eyebeller (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)
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)