Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 34: Line 34:
: Seeking community input about the request itself would be useful, as I assume that [[User:ToBeFree]]'s interpretation is mainly to clear the backlog while nobody else has accept anything. Have I interpreted that correctly? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
: Seeking community input about the request itself would be useful, as I assume that [[User:ToBeFree]]'s interpretation is mainly to clear the backlog while nobody else has accept anything. Have I interpreted that correctly? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Naleksuh}}, that's incorrect. The content removed in [[Special:Diff/968504213]] furthermore seems to confirm the impression that led to the decline. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 20:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Naleksuh}}, that's incorrect. The content removed in [[Special:Diff/968504213]] furthermore seems to confirm the impression that led to the decline. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 20:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{hiddenping|ToBeFree}}I wrote that ''after'' it was marked as {{tl|not done}}, so that would not have been the reason for the mark. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
:::{{hiddenping|ToBeFree}} You said yourself that your own response was "arbitrary" due to it being the only one pending, and that addition input from the community would be welcome. You have now said that this is incorrect, but not described what is. In addition, I am not sure why that text having been removed is a problem, as I felt it would be better suited from community input than escalating any issues on RfP itself. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


====[[User:Awsomaw]]====
====[[User:Awsomaw]]====

Revision as of 20:38, 19 July 2020

Rollback

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
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.

User:Shadow4dark

Hello i request the Rollback to fight more effective against vandalism specific sock vandals. I made 900+ edits. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadow4dark: Can you please provide examples of where this permission would have been useful? Could you also please explain how you've found yourself caught up in two content disputes over the course of two months? Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About he cotnet disputes. In number 1 dipsute, someone did mayor changes in lede without explanation on talk page or edit summaries. After outsiders joined in talk page it was solved for me. And we dit no edit war for this dispute. The other one we have big dispute about the sources, If you see my history this is long running dispute with several admins involved. it is to hard for resolve this dispute because we can't agree the NPOV of the source and now this dispute is on WP:NPOVN.

Here a sock vandal deleted sourced content because the source was deprecated. But he could replace the source because we have many alternative sources. [[1]]

Here another sock removes large content [[2]] and here [[3]] He comes back [[4]] but i reported him on SP [[5]] someone else had rollback rights and reverted his edits. All these pages is on my watchlist. And from recent edits. [[6]] [[7]] Shadow4dark (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for 1 month. I'd like to see how you'd use this tool before granting it permanently. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Naleksuh

Hi, I'd like to use rollback as more efficient method of dealing with obvious vandalism and LTAs (of which I have experience of dealing with cross-wiki spam). I am award of acceptable uses (in other cases where undo is much more appropriate), and have already used the tool on two other projects. Naleksuh (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This may seem arbitrary, and perhaps it is. Naleksuh, this request is the only one remaining unanswered on this page, since 8 July. On 17 July, a concern about an alleged "urge to revert repeatedly" has been voiced by Acroterion on your talk page. On 3 July, in a friendly and otherwise commendable way, you wrote "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" in response to an apology on your talk page. On 24 June, there has been a complaint about your usage of the "minor edit" checkbox. On 16 March, you have been blocked for what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion that turned out to be incorrect. None of this is reason enough to decline rollback, but together, the following image appears: "Too much, too early, too fast". This is probably also why this request has not been answered yet: Noone is comfortable granting rollback under these circumstances, but noone had a reason to decline the request immediately.
Rollback is for calm, accountable usage by experienced editors, and this is an edge case. The administrators who had the chance to answer this request have carefully chosen not to do so.
This request has been effectively declined because of a bad gut feeling. If you would like to challenge this decision instead of gaining more experience and asking again in half a year or so, you are welcome to create a thread at WP:AN for community input.
 Not done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Placing here as a note for future reference to any passing admins as I don't usually check AN, and would rather not get involved in a thread there - re the 3 July incident, Naleksuh made a report on RedWarn's discord. I explained that this was a known bug, and linked Naleksuh to the issue thread on GitLab. The issue was found and patched per the standard process within < 18 hours of this report (due to receiving it at around 3AM BST) as the issue had clearly become widespread. Following a brief discussion in which I speculated about the bug before locating it, Naleksuh sent the message "believe i am killing off your tool, apologies for any member drops, this was not done intentionally!" with a screenshot of this thread. As I hope you can understand, we found this both uncivil and rather rude as we have put lots of work into RedWarn's development, and I had even found, diagnosed and began work in planning a patch for the bug in the early hours of the morning due to its severity, as I had told Naleksuh. Continued nonconstructive discussion in RedWarn's channels ultimately resulted in myself and Prompt0259 (talk · contribs) reaching the consensus to block Naleksuh from RedWarn's discord server to prevent further disputes. Ed6767 talk! 19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking community input about the request itself would be useful, as I assume that User:ToBeFree's interpretation is mainly to clear the backlog while nobody else has accept anything. Have I interpreted that correctly? Naleksuh (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naleksuh, that's incorrect. The content removed in Special:Diff/968504213 furthermore seems to confirm the impression that led to the decline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ You said yourself that your own response was "arbitrary" due to it being the only one pending, and that addition input from the community would be welcome. You have now said that this is incorrect, but not described what is. In addition, I am not sure why that text having been removed is a problem, as I felt it would be better suited from community input than escalating any issues on RfP itself. Naleksuh (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awsomaw

Hi, would like to have rollback permissions. I've been here for a while, almost at 700 edits. I mainly write articles, as you can tell from my history. I've done a little bit of this stuff here and there, but I would like to do more of it now. I think I'm ready for this. Let me know if I can demonstrate anything more, or if you want me to continue doing this stuff for a while before requesting again. Thanks. Awsomaw (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awsomaw, while waiting for this request to be answered, you have nicely used the time to prove your suitability for the permission.
 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShadowCyclone

I’ve been editing for 2 years now and I’ve become pretty accustomed to the policies and guidelines here. I believe the rollback permissions will help me fight vandalism more efficiently and effectively without any hiccups. ShadowCyclone talk 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC) ShadowCyclone talk 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sharief123

Hi, would like to have rollback permissions. I've been here for a while, almost more than 500 edits. I mainly write articles, as you can tell from my history. I've done a little bit of this stuff here and there, but I would like to do more of it now. I think I'm ready for this and I’ve been editing for 2 years now and I’ve become pretty accustomed to the policies and guidelines here. I believe the rollback permissions will help me fight vandalism more efficiently. So, please give me permission to use rollback.

Sharief123ᗙ

 Not done You have no experience reverting vandalism. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Telfordbuck

I would like access to rollback rights please. I have a proven track record of fighting vandalism on wikipedia as well as correcting other edits in good faith. Telfordbuck (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Telfordbuck. Your last vandalism revert has been over three months ago; your last revert was removing a concerned user's complaint from your talk page without comment, instead of taking the chance to demonstrate calm accountability. Many messages on your talk page, primarily about your usage of reversion tools, remained unanswered for years as well.
 Not done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giraffer

Hello, I am requesting access to rollback rights to allow me to combat vandalism more effectively. I patrol the edit filter often and have made well over 100 reversions & talk page messages as well as over 400 mainspace edits. (I have also never engaged in an edit war or been blocked or banned). Also, I currently use Twinkle. Thanks! Regards, Giraffer (munch) 11:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as a probationary grant for two weeks. Your account is on the low end for experience – you've only been reverting vandalism for a couple weeks – but your efforts are promising and I'm grateful for your work. Before your rollback renewal I think it'd be great if you started WP:CVUA if you can find the time. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin (L235), just a note to say that I have successfully enrolled in CVUA and completed my first task for my trainer, Cassiopeia. Giraffer (stay home) 14:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:The creeper2007

Hello everyone! I would like to have rollback rights so that I could use Huggle for faster vandalism patrolling. Right now, I am using recent changes with Twinkle/RedWarn. The issue with RC+TW takes a lot time during reverts and would like to speed things up. Thank you! The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 18:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC). Edited on 17:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([8]). — MusikBot talk 18:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the automated comment, the previous request that have been declined is back then when I had 90 edits, now I have 1500+ edits.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 16:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{done}} - probationary grant of one month. I also echo L235's comment on your previous application - consider applying for WP:CVUA. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration and after seeing a recent incident where they reverted inappropriately,  Not done (and revoked). Recommend CVUA before re-applying. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: I'm already enrolled in CVUA and that issue was the only time where I had a accident out of 1500 edits. Could you please reconsider?The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my CVUA course page here, i'm finished on the final exam.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 18:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unhappy about the rollback and that incident, but I have invited another admin to take a look at this case. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not the admin GeneralNotability contacted, I also have some issues with granting the role at this time. Going through their reverts using the undo tool from this month revealed a few edits that I'd like to be clarified. @The creeper2007: Why did you re-add this content? At the time of removal, it had been sitting in that article without sources since 2015, and with a tag since 2016. Unsourced content should be removed if it's not able to be sourced, and re-adding the content puts the onus of referencing on you. This is a matter of BRD and interpretation of "controversy". I do agree with the IP that one site saying an article is bad hardly carries water in the grand scheme of things. People get criticised all the time. Reverting with the summary of "Rv section blanking with invalid reason" is an invalid reason. On this article, it looks like you were overeager to revert the change. This is the most minor incident of the three, but it does demonstrate that you may not fully read what you're changing before you make said change, which is a big problem. If it were up to me, I'd decline this request and ask that The creeper2007 return in 3-6 months with more experience than just reverting changes that show up in red on the recent changes page. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too have reviewed this and concur with Anarchyte and with GeneralNotability. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: If you look through the List of incidents of cannibalism, you would notice that then I deleted the rest of that message. The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 16:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The creeper2007: I did see this, but the fact that your first edit was not to manually remove the content is the problematic aspect. It implies, at least slightly, that removing "so please feel free to help us expand it by eating some children" was an afterthought. Again, you've done some good work over the last few months, but we'd like to see some more experience before any of us feel comfortable granting the permission permanently. Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user does not appear to have the permission rollback. — MusikBot talk 17:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blablubbs

Hi, filing this somewhat early to avoid permission gaps if possible. I currently have Rollback rights which were granted temporarily because I hadn't been active for long enough (previous request here). They are about to expire in a few days and I wanted to request an extension so I can continue using Huggle to fight vandalism. Thanks for your consideration! Best, Blablubbs (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user was granted temporary rollback rights by AmandaNP (expires 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 09:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Your rollback permission no longer has an expiry date. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jourdainowen

I request rollback rights because I regularly come across mass vandalism on Wikipedia, Occasionally by multiple users. Only being able to undo singular edits causes issues when working against vandalism, I have experienced this numerous times while editing. I can understand that I lack the amount of edits as other applicants, however I believe my consistency against vandalism demonstrates my ability to handle the responsibility of Rollback rights. Jourdainowen (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user has 88 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jourdainowen, I would have temporarily granted rollback because your request is mostly reasonable, openly addresses the lack of mainspace contributions and provides an understandable reason for the early request. However, the broken wikilinks in your edit summaries and user talk page warnings seem to confirm the general rule of 200 mainspace edits as a prerequirement for such requests. Please fix the broken warning messages, take the time to become really experienced with Twinkle, and feel free to re-request in a month or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:0qd

Hi, I'd like to request rollback to aid myself in reverting vandalism and begin to move from Twinkle to Huggle. I've read the conditions & rules for rollback usage. The majority of my edits are anti-vandalism related & I plan to continue fighting it in the future. Thank you for the consideration. 0qd (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for 1 month; please request here at WP:PERM/R again for it to be made persistent about a week before it expires. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KaitoNkmra23

I requested for rollback rights and permissions a few months back after an admin specified that I should wait a few months before requesting again and gain counter-vandalism experience during this time and through the use of devices such as Twinkle (which is what I am using currently). I'd like to request for rollback rights to install Huggle to enable for an efficient and effective method of reverting vandalism and/or disruptive editing. I've read the policies relating to rollback permissions and what it consists of. If there are any questions or concerns regarding any of my past edits, I'd be happy to discuss them. KaitoNkmra23 talk 11:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KaitoNkmra23: Why aren't you warning the people you revert? Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: Most of the edits I revert would not classify as heavy vandalism or disruptive edits and would be unnecessary for warnings. In the case of a potential edit war caused by IP users (which was on a frequent basis until recently), RPP/PP would be used to temporarily protect articles from further disruptive edits as IP addresses change frequently and to avoid sockpuppetry. KaitoNkmra23 talk 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=968507887"