Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008

< Wikipedia:Requests for rollback | Denied

January 9

edit

User:Welshleprechaun

edit
Fed up of seeing Wikipedia abused through vandalism Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done until consensus emerges from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Welshleprechaun. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Daniel on this. I see some edit warring from your account I'm concerned you might use the tool for that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

edit

User:El_Greco

edit
I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my edits on a daily basis are unduing some sort of vandalism. El Greco(talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this, you have a 3RR block from September. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done Visit WP:ANI and get consensus, and this will be done. GDonato (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlackPearl14

edit
I am currently working on all Pirates of the Caribbean Articles and a few others. I have so many things to revert that it takes at least two hours to finish reverting a day’s worth of vandalism on the watchlist. As a hard-working contributor on these pages, I think that I should at least have this tool – one that would completely aid me. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my mistake. I won’t do that again. When can I get the rollback feature? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf

edit
I have reverted vandalism on a number of occasions, including several UNDIDs today. I also have WP:AWB rights. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not recommend granting +rollbacker due to extensive block history with 3RRs. Nakon 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done. east.718 at 00:46, January 10, 2008
Granted I can't deny having had these run-ins in the past, but if you look at my recent history, it's not one of edit-warring or 3RR issues. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quanticle

edit
I patrol the recent modifications list often, and I feel that rollback would greatly enhance the efficiency of my patrol. quanticle
  Not done, request added by IP address. Please log in. Nakon 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirex98

edit

I have been editing since late 2005 a regularly editing and patrolling new changes using scripts such as God-like for vandalism rollback while using the Lupin's Anti-vandal tool, for non-vandalism e.g. pov, spam etc I will use the edit summery for the reasons in standard revering. User:Sirex98 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done, please use the correct template and relist your request. Nakon 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allstarecho

edit
Useful in recent changes/vandalism patrol, use similar with Twinkle now. -- ALLSTARecho 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a very recent block which makes me hesitant to give +rollbacker. Nakon 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the most recent was where I was baited into attacking back someone that had attacked me calling me a pederast on my talk page. I plainly admitted in that incident I shouldn't have responded back to the attacker. The next block was removed after all the facts were considered. And the final block was an edit war block in November where I had been trying to keep inaccurate info out of the Houston Nutt article because he had not been officially named the new football coach at University of Mississippi and people kept putting in the article that he was the coach. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done reliatively recent block for edit warring. ViridaeTalk 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 block in all of my history on WP?? -- ALLSTARecho 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allstarecho

edit
As was told, here's a redo. Useful in recent changes/vandalism patrol, use similar with Twinkle now. -- ALLSTARecho 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further: Indeed, I had an "edit war" block in November. This was at the Houston Nutt article and at the time speculation was all over the media that he was about to be named the new head football coach at the University of Mississippi. He was not however, officially the coach yet anons and newly registereds kept adding the info to everything from the lede to the infobox that he was in fact the new coach. This was unsourced and no media had officially reported it. I kept removing it and asking people not to add that info until it was official and sourced. I got the 3RR block. As for my most recent block, I was baited by User:Law Lord who left a comment on my talk page calling me a pederast. Rather than ignoring it and letting the admins handle it, I replied back. I said then that I know I was wrong but in that instant, he just might as well have called me a child molester and exactly how is one supposed to react? Humanly I'd imagine. I've since apologized to the admins involved. Other than that, my contribs and history speaks for itself. -- ALLSTARecho 06:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done again - block for edit warring a little over a month ago (nov 30th). Wait untill you can behave yourself for a few months and then reapply. ViridaeTalk 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, see User_talk:Allstarecho#Rollback for my thoughts and Bstone's request. John Reaves 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that still stands. Edit warring block a little over a month ago means im not going to change my mind. The other block was not taken into account. ViridaeTalk 06:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But a 3RR block 5 months ago is ok? I see. -- ALLSTARecho 07:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smitty4802

edit
Reverting vandalism Smitty (talk)
Fixing request. Nakon 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer someone with more experience to request the tool, sorry. Maybe with more edits,   Not done. Secret account 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supergodzilla2090

edit
I'm all ways fighting vandalism, as my coutributions would say. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Nakon 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After further discussion, a few number of admins, myself included doesn't see him fit for rollback,   Not done Secret account 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should that further discussion be put here for the record? Or was it recorded somewhere else? Kingturtle (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlackPearl14

edit
I am currently working on all Pirates of the Caribbean Articles and a few others. I have so many things to revert that it takes at least two hours to finish reverting a day’s worth of vandalism on the watchlist. As a hard-working contributor on these pages, I think that I should at least have this tool – one that would completely aid me. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my mistake. I won’t do that again. When can I get the rollback feature? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adrian Teh

edit
I've been doing what I can on pages I watch. Would certainly appreciate a tool that can assist me with this process. Thank you. -Adrian Teh (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   This request is being held for 15 minutes to give other administrators time to review it.   Ryan Postlethwaite 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support granting rollback ASAP. --Merovingian (T, C) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but with only 150 edits I don't think you have the experience required to know when rollback can be correctly applied, and in what situations to what edits. I must register my objection at this time, although I welcome comments by everyone prior to any decision. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done Your current work is great, but I would want to see a longer track record before granting the tool. Please come back in a month or so. —Kurykh 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coreycubed

edit
I've been vandal fighting almost exclusively the last few months (it's all I have time to do at the moment, work prevent any major mainspace contributions). I'd like to start using the proper rollback tool instead of Twinkle's method. Coreycubed (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   This request is being held for 15 minutes to give other administrators time to review it.   Ryan Postlethwaite 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support granting rollback ASAP. --Merovingian (T, C) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merovingian, we get the point. —Kurykh 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just acting as a voice of support, hopefully to make the process a little smoother. --Merovingian (T, C) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this vandalism? —Kurykh 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, it's just not relevant to the article. Obviously, rollback doesn't affect that at all. Coreycubed (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'll take your word for that...but how about this? Sorry, I'm just having a hint of concern. —Kurykh 04:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; one should never revert another editor without a meaningful edit summary, unless the edit is so obviously harmful as to qualify as vandalism. That Coreycubed does it with Twinkle – which he oughtn't – does not bode well for what he might do with rollback. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done per concerns Secret account 04:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilac Soul

edit
I already do a lot of vandalism fighting with Twinkle, and if this is faster and better on the server load, I'll be happy to switch. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly nervous that this user has used Twinkle fairly regularly for (admitedly minor) content reversion, rather than directly editing the page. Pedro :  Chat  10:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not that nervous, since he didn't tag those I saw as vandalism, but used the other rollback (that would be a very bad idea with the admin rollback since you can't comment). But to be fair you started using Twinkle less than a month ago (15:23, 18 December 2007), I think you should maybe get more used to it. Dunno... -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, I don't particularly care which one I use, I only went for this as I thought it might be better on server load. But you're probably quite right, and I thank you both for reviewing my request. Take care! Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Request withdrawn. Try to tread a little more lightly with respect to content reversions; the use of semiautomatic scripts such as Twinkle on their good-faith edits annoys many people. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pbradbury

edit
For vandalism patrol
User has less than 400 edit to Wikipedia. I would be keen to see another months editing before granting rollback. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. Majorly (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, more experience would be a plus. I'm going to mark this a   Not done. Mr.Z-man 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heliac

edit
I'm an avid vandalism patroller, who has been forced into early retirement by recent developments in popups that make them broken in internet explorer 6, my browser of choice. This new privillage would allow me return to wikipedia. I promise never to use it abusuively. thank you--Heliac (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I take your comments on board about your browser, I am nervous that you have made no edits at all in around seven months. Reversion is not the only thing to do. I am concerned that you will have sufficent policy/process knowledge due to your apparent extended break. This is not an out and out decline however, and I would appreciate other admin input. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many completely inappropriate reverts by Heliac where obviously good-faith and seemingly helpful anonymous edits were reverted as "vandalism". I don't think this user should be trusted with a tool that makes reverts even easier than they are already. –Henning Makholm 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done extended break only just returned. Gnangarra 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that's a valid reason to decline? all you're doing by setting this precident is encouraging anon vandalism, by showing them what rediculous hoops you have to jump through to get an effective, internet explorer 6 compatible revision tool.--Heliac (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, there isn't really a lot of hard and fast policy associated with this process at the moment. The best I can advise is to take this thread to WP:ANI for a further review. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Henning Makholm. Heliac reverts inappropriately and then fails to justify or respond to any challenges to the reverts. See Template: English Monarchs for a recent exampleFat Red (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavia immer

edit
I am not primarily a vandalism patroller, but I do watch a large number of problematic articles. I do have popups, but would appreciate having rollback for efficiency. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with your sterling efforts here, but you've done about three reversions in the last three months. Admittedly "no use for the tools" is not an argument to be used in denying this request (IMHO) but I haven't got a lot here to judge your ability to revert with. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done lacks any experience to assess usage as per and have experience in the area that the tool is used Gnangarra 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

samfreed

edit
Could be handy on the watchlist Samfreed (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done about 10 edits in the last 2 months, only 40 since october Gnangarra 14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

j.sweeton@wnri.com

edit
Currently using pop-ups, would like to try this new rollback procedure. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. No substantial issues here. Would welcome any other input though. Pedro :  Chat  12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there weren't any other comments, I was going to grant this... BUT... it seems we have a bug. "You do not have permission to edit user rights on other wikis.". I bet it has to do with the @ in the user's name. SQLQuery me! 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh! You're right - I can't either. The "other wiki's" thing makes me think that even 'crats may not be able to do it. Pedro :  Chat  12:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So... Where do we go from here? SQLQuery me! 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Changing username Gnangarra 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(U)Indeed, Due to technical issues,   Not done SQLQuery me! 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this request would be granted but for a current technical issue. No real need for the user to change their name, as e-mail address accounts are permitted under a grandfathered policy, and it seems silly to force a name change because of a bug. Off to the devs with this I think. Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reported at the village pump [3] Pedro :  Chat  13:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted at m:Requests for permissions#J.sweeton@wnri.com@en wikipedia. —Random832 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this can't be done by a steward, the usergroup rollbacker is not available from meta, best regards, --birdy (:> )=| 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to grant through the editor ID but the system is still bugged. Nakon 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. It looks like I'm gonna be changing my name. =( Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done for strictly technical reasons. This user has been approved, but will have to choose to change username to allow us to grant the right. User has been informed of this choice. NoSeptember 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Melty girl

edit
  Not done, please follow the request guidelines. Nakon 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be the stupidest reason for refusing I have seen so far. - Mark 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rijulkochhar

edit
unintentional deletion of all information on St Stephen's College, Delhi Rijulkochhar (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC) ==[reply]

I deleted this page by mistake. Sorry!

  Not done, this is the page to request the +rollbacker right be added to your account. You probably want Help:Reverting Nakon 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've reverted the page you provided. Nakon 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC-0722

edit
having rollback would increase my productivity as a vandal fighter. RC-0722 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done. Sorry, but that block is much too recent; let's give it a little more time. Kafziel Talk 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I granted this user rollback, then removed it immediately. I didn't notice the block. J-ſtanContribsUser page 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maniwar

edit
Currently I use Twinkle which is buggy and inconsistent. I will admit I have edit warred in the past, but I've learned from it and I want to keep Wikipedia vandal free. --Maniwar (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{done}} Nakon 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like that to be reconsidered. This user seems to be directly involved with the dispute with User:TTN, using rollback to revert his edits. I'd like to remove his edits, but what does everyone think? J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with J-stan. The guy had identified TTN's edits as vandalism and rolled back using twinkle only a few hours before this request. — DarkFalls talk 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revoked (not by me). Nakon 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it, user is directly using it to revert TTN's edits, using inflammatory edit summaries here and here, among others. J-ſtanContribsUser page 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done (for archive bot) ViridaeTalk 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ilkali

edit
Most of what I do is reversion of bad edits, whether vandalism or POV or something else. I use Twinkle at the moment, and it has the annoying habit of cutting out mid-send and truncating articles (eg: [4]). Ilkali (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done. Sorry but you need to show a better understanding of what rollback is for before we can grant you the tool. Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, his Twinkle reverts all have reasonable edit summaries. In most cases, rollback would have been wrong, though. Can't say whether the user would use rollback instead of Twinkle-with-good-edit-summary for non-vandal reverts. Kusma (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its very early in their wiki-career (600 odd edits) to really know how they would react and the evidence is that they don't quite understand the reasons why rollback use is so restricted so. There is no reason the next application will not succeed if they stop rolling back content with TW. Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. We should have had policy answers to that (and other outstanding issues) prior to launching this process. El_C 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of that. This seems a good example of common sense working. Admin S isn't sure, seeks further comments and admins W and P weigh in and confirm doubts. Request not actioned. No doubt we will develop as we go along - in 20 years of working within a system that constantly reinvents itself I have yet to see a single example of something new following exactly along the predicted lines. Perhaps this should be better discussed at talk but I need to go to work and its probably not fair on the user to use this as a case in point to argue through the pros and cons of non-admin Rollback Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I need to try TWB to see the difference in what they can do... Unless, it is only about rb's formal appearance. El_C 11:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - maybe I'm being stupid but I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are making. Perhaps you can take this to talk as I'm going to work as soon as I save this edit and won't be able to look at this again for several hours. Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

edit

User:Bpeps

edit
I want it before its all gone Bpeps (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{done}} for bot archiving purposes. J-ſtanContribsUser page 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Un-done. Recent comments on User talk:Jza84 do not give me any confidence in Bpeps right now. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bpeps

edit
Re-apply (no waiting limit unless WP:POINT gets out of hand) Solid edits to 5 articles including 2 originals some VP patrol uses TW Bpeps (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{done}}. Why not? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I feel this user has a desire to fight vandals, and I can't think of a reason to withhold it. J-ſtanContribsUser page 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Un-done; see above. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

edit

User:Delicious carbuncle

edit
I'd like to automatically add those nifty and polite TALK notices when reverting vandalism Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean a tool that automatically places vandalism warnings on usertalk pages when reverting vandalism, that's not what rollback does. Other tools are available for that purpose. BLACKKITE 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like Black Kite says.--Kushan I.A.K.J 12:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to be facetious. I was asking for rollback so that I could more easily revert multi-edit vandalism, as well as the talk messages and cleaner history. But please point at the other tool yo mention, regardless. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:TWINKLE.--Addhoc (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done Per advice, Editor has installed Twinkle [5]. He can reapply at a later date if rollback is still required. Pedro :  Chat  15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SteveChervitzTrutane

edit
I request rollback privileges to more easily revert vandalism, as I just did on Larry the Cable Guy. One thing that isn't clear to me is how does the rollback feature relate to Twinkle? Is rollback recommended over use of Twinkle or are they equivalent? Can Twinkle take advantage of one's rollback privileges? Can rollback privileges be indicated on one's user page with a nifty graphic a la Twinkle? ;-) Thanks. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has so few edits. You might want to try Twinkle first.--Ѕandahl 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done under 30 edits is just to few to deomstrate need or responsible use. Twinkle would seem a better bet at this stage. Pedro :  Chat  15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle does the same thing, no? SQLQuery me! 04:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


January 16

edit

mnearing

edit
There appears to be a concerted and persistent attempt to vandalize the "erosion" (as in soil erosion) article Mnearing (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done - I'm sorry, but you haven't got enough experience just yet (around 10 edits). Keep your head up though and try installing twinkle - it works in a very similar way. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have watchlisted Erosion so I will revert vandalism when I see it. Keep reverting as you see it like you have recently. ViridaeTalk 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter

edit
This will save me time in reverting obvious vandalism. Timeshifter (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask, do you understand what rollback is to be used for? Anything resembling a content dispute should be manually reverted not using rollback. I ask this, because some users raised concerns in this current request for arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I was never made a part of that arbitration, and I have no desire to use this tool in content disputes. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about your block log though, as you've been blocked a few times for 3RR. You realize that, if you use rollback to edit war, it will be taken away? Acalamari 04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done history of 3RR. ViridaeTalk 04:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking a side either way, but, last block for 3rr was months ago, and, the one months before that, was overturned. SQLQuery me! 04:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have over 11,000 edits, and I have done a substantial amount of edits in the topic area of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. That area is one of the most contentious areas in wikipedia. So I think I have a relatively low amount of 3RR violations considering. :) But I will understand if I am not given use of the rollback tool. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

edit

Taliath

edit
I've already had to revert a couple edits by vandals and would appreciate if there was a way to speed up the process. Thanks! Taliath (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest trying out Twinkle before asking for rollback. You just have too few edits to accurately determine whether you'll abuse it or not. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done - as J-stan above me says, try installing twinkle so you can get a feel of what should, and what shouldn't be reverted (You'll actually find it's very similar to rollback). Happy editing, and feel free to contact me, or J-stan if you have further questions. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the_juggreserection

edit
well, for the main reason of being able to revert vandalism easily. I swear to use it in good faith if it is granted to me.
This may not be relevant but, it seems that you haven't done much with the current (undo) link. Are you sure you'd know how to use it? Rudget. 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
of course.the juggreserection IstKrieg! 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have very few edits and don't seem to do much anti-vandalism work. I'm tending towards not granting this request at the present time, but I'll leave it upto someone else to make the final call. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done I see you've got twinkle. I suggest using it before reapplying so we can better know whether you'll use rollback tools to fight an edit war. Unless the reason you don't use twinkle is because you use IE7. In which case, it might be appropriate to give you rollback. But you can still use undo. Try RC patrol, using undo or twinkle, and then we'll see. J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

edit

Dustihowe

edit
Am constantly patrolling new pages and recent edits. I see this as a great tool in my fight againts vandalism on Wikipedia Dustihowe  Talk  18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done Gather some experience in recent changes patrolling and slow down with the requests for additional editing privileges. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone else 90

edit
having learnt from the error of my ways of youthful wikipedia vandalism, i am now dedicated to recent changes patrolling, as you can see from my contributions, so rollback would be very helpful! Thanks! Someone else 90 (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done Very few edits, this undo of good faith talk page edit, and a caution for an attack page very recently. Pedro :  Chat  14:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

edit

Octavian history

edit
There has been major problems with vandalism on Marilyn Monroe, Robert Fulton, etc. and this would really help me stop them, thank you--Octavian history (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done - you don't seem to be involved with these articles or with vandalism at all. I suggest that you get more experience, don't get blocked again, leave better edit summaries and apply again. Kusma (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

edit

Erick880

edit
I would like to request rollback so I can effectively begin fighting vandalism, as I notice it is becoming more rampant. Erick880 (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have much edits on your account, nor I see a history of vandal fighting, so I am very hesitent at the moment giving you the rollback for now. But for now I'll leave the request here for another admin to review. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what is the best way for me to start fighting vandalism?
Twinkle would be a good start.--Ѕandahl 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done for now. JustinContribsUser page 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewinchester

edit
I would like to gain access to this tool for the purpose of dealing with large-scale vandalism by single users. I constantly monitor significant groups of articles such as shopping centres where frequent pointless or redundant changes are made. Having access to this tool would significantly speed up the process of dealing with such issues as they occur. TIA Thewinchester (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done A review of your most recent contributions shows you using tools to undo good faith edits. Rollback is for quick reversion of vandalism and not for use when frequent pointless or redundant changes are made. Pedro :  Chat  11:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

edit

Swilli88

edit
Rollback would allow me to combat some ongoing vandalism in several articles I am monitoring.
  Not done - I'm very sorry, but with only 14 edits, you have no evidence of understanding of Wikipedia's policies or guidlines. Therefore, there's no way to tell how you would use the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

edit

User:SURIV

edit
Mostly for recent changes patrolling.
  Not done I'd prefer more than a couple of hundred edits and just a few days of reversion - pop back in a couple of weeks of accurate undoing and I'll be happy to grant. Pedro :  Chat  16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark Chung

edit
I hope I can contribute more to Wikipedia Mark Chung (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only have 16 main space edits. Why not try WP:TWINKLE first?--Kushan I.A.K.J 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done No prejudice to a future re-application. Pedro :  Chat  16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

edit

Pookeo9

edit
I will help by reverting with the rollback, and i will revert ASAP. --Pookeo9 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done - not enough experience, with only one week of activity here. Please be patient and come back in a few months. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pookeo9 - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EricV89

edit
I would use this tool carefully and examine all articles for vandilism and undesired information. This will make my work and patrolling easier. Thanks. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done - not enough vandal-fighting experience. I found one revert, which was a correct revert. Get some practice using the undo feature first, and then come back in a week or two. Thanks! Acalamari 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

edit

User:someone else 90

edit
As you can see, I have been involved with recent changes setting. I have not racked up many edits yet, as you can see, but I have a clear record of vandalism fighting, and I have come across vandalism, but been unable to rollback to an unvandalised edition of a page without this tool. Someone else 90 (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain these two edits? - Zeibura ( talk ) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done The diffs from Zeibura above and the attack page created by this editor on the 9th of January. Try editing sensibly for a few weeks and reapply. Pedro :  Chat  12:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please define a few weeks. I have no intention of returning to do any more bad edits, so assuming I do more of the same vandal fighting as I am now, when should I try again? A few weeks since those bad edits has already passed!!! Someone else 90 (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no hard and fast rule. However I would say that with four weeks of productive editing, (in which you use the "undo" tool properly for vandalism work), and general helping out here is sufficent. Please feel free to ask me directly on my talk page at that time and I'll be happy to review. Alternatively any administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests will be able to help. Id ask that you do not ask any of these administrators in the meantime however, but demonstrate four weeks of commitment and that you are here to seriously help. Many thanks. Pedro :  Chat  13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

edit

User:Sacharin

edit
I regularly engage in reverting vandalisn via Recent Changes, and having this ability would make the job easier. Sacharin (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Might be a little new for something like rollback. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done for the time being. Sub 100 edits and only a couple of reversions to date. No prejudice to reapplying in the near future, preferably with a history of using the "undo" tool for accurate reversions. Pedro :  Chat  11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied/January_2008&oldid=1149984676"