Page semi-protected

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 Naleksuh (talk | contribs) at 07:13, 21 July 2020 (→‎User:Naleksuh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: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 this review was "arbitrary" due to it being the only one remaining, and that additional input from the community would be welcome. You then said that this is incorrect, but not described what is. I am also not sure how that text having been removed is related, 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]
This thread probably should be moved to WP:AN to stop this from filling RFP with this discussion, and also to allow for further consensus. Ed6767 talk! 20:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​The purpose of this thread is solely about evaluating the RfP, not for other offwiki concerns. With that in mind, I do not oppose closure review on WP:AN as long as it is done so neutrally and on-topic. Is there anything else to discuss besides ToBeFree's closure? Naleksuh (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since there appears to be no objection I have started a thread at AN. Naleksuh (talk) 07:13, 21 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: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 ([1]). — 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: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]
 Not done Rollback is used when encountering obvious vandalism. Based on what you said here, you don't encounter heavy vandalism so have no need for the tool. In looking into your user talk edits, I think there's maybe one user you've encountered that you warned. That suggests to me that you don't have anti-vandalism experience so I don't see a reason to provide the tool. only (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Idell

Hello, I have been a member of Wikipedia for 6 years, however I wasn’t always a daily editor. During this time, I have gained quite some experience in using Twinkle. So far, I have made about 1000 edits across 5 WikiMedia projects and in 12 namespaces; more than 500 edits in the English Wikipedia mainspace. I like to participate in discussions that lead to consensus and improvements. I’ve also been proudly and successfully fighting vandalism and problematic editors. It does take a toll on oneself when you always have to be nice to others no matter what. I’d like to use this right to participate constructively in making Wikipedia better and reduce some of the general workload. I’m willing to take extra care and follow best practices while using my rollback rights, should you choose to accept my request. I have mostly been working on other projects in the last few weeks, I hope it won’t be a problem. Thanks, Idell (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(in response to both requests, the other one being at WP:PERM/PCR)
Hi Idell, if you had to choose between "rollback" and "pending changes reviewer", which one would you take, and why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: I require rollback more than PCR so if I had to choose one of the two, I would go for rollback. I probably will be using rollback rights more often. But I was hoping for both. Idell (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchyte, you had declined the previous request for PCR, about a month ago (Special:Permalink/965069938). I think I'd risk granting both without probation if you're okay with this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: I didn't see any concerning reverts with a random spot-check, so if you think they're ready I don't oppose granting either permission. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't see any concerning reverts first either. A quick re-check gave me Special:Diff/965637217 and Special:Diff/964278041, perhaps also Special:Diff/967509718, which would probably have been problematic rollbacks per WP:ROLLBACKUSE and WP:BURDEN. Idell, I'll add the pending changes reviewer permission, but I might have been too optimistic about rollbacking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Thank you. I’m wondering whether it would be a little too farfetched to request you to reconsider. I acknowledge that I have more to learn and I, as I’ve previously said, am willing to be more careful while using my rights. Thanks, anyway. Idell (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not far-fetched, which is why I didn't add "not done" yet. Would you mind practising with Twinkle for another week, and then simply adding a message on my talk page asking to have another look? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I’ll leave a message on your talk page in a week or so, when I've made enough further rollbacks. Idell (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks for your patience and stamina 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done yet, but likely in a week (I'd be genuinely surprised if not) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=968742860"