Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Successful applicants will usually have:
  1. At least 200 mainspace edits.
  2. At least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges.
  3. No recent history of edit warring.
  4. A track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits.
The counter-vandalism training program is available if you wish to gain experience in handling vandalism.

User:Rasteem

I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.

I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteem Talk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteem Talk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteem Talk ®asteem Talk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteem Talk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just took another look at your recent contributions and I'm still seeing instances where you are reverting edits and failing to notify the editor: 1, 2, 3. Didn't you just promise that you would be more diligent about this? -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilledMammal

Reverting vandalism and removing edits by sock-puppets. Also if my move script breaks again. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal. Not sure if you knew this but folks requesting rollback are usually doing so because they want access to high-volume anti-vandalism/RecentChanges patrol tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal. Is there any reason why something like Twinkle is insufficient for your needs? I did a quick review of your recent contributions and I'm not seeing a high volume of reverts that would necessitate rollback. -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally one would discuss problems with tool use with the editor, on their talk page, and go to a noticeboard which this page is not if they were still unsatisfied. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: @Fastily: Looking at BilledMammal's use of the rollback (31 edits) so far, they have involved removing sourced content from articles, and are seemingly in violation of "Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits by sockpuppets are by definition in bad faith. Further, given the frequent source misrepresentation issues by that sockpuppet, we can’t trust that the presence of a source means the content is supported - and thus it is better to remove them all. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is factually incorrect as WP:GF says: “Violation of policies—such as engaging in sockpuppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith.”
Also that’s the second half of what I quoted. The first half explicitly says “vandalism only.” Sockpuppetry although disruptive is not vandalism. You should revert what you disagree with, not mass remove large chunks of what appears to be reliably sourced content.
If you have concerns, which is legitimate given the socking, you can check each of these sources yourself. Otherwise, mass removing everything is doing more harm than good. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, would you also argue against reverting edits by Icewhiz’s sockpuppets?
Regardless, this is common practice, and if you are willing to take full responsibility for CAE’s edits you are welcome to restore them. Personally, given the frequent issues with these edits, I would not be willing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, a couple of days ago you were reverting sockpuppet edits with the same justification - what’s different here? BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would also argue against that. There were many articles even created from scratch by Icewhiz’s several socks including Cuisine of Jerusalem, and the Jordanian Option which I find to be incredibly biased and have not touched. I reverted what I disagreed with, I did not mass revert everything. When linking to my reverts of that sock to make an argument, please maintain honesty by presenting the full picture, and not by presenting a misleading one. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t see your self-revert - I was looking at just your edits with a relevant edit summary - and regardless, there were many more examples I could have chosen, unless you are saying you’ve self-reverted all of them?
In any case, this is standard practice, and given the widespread issues with this editors contributions I think it was necessary. Of course, as I said before, if you are willing to assume responsibility for the edits you may restore them. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly saying that I selectively reverted some of the socks edits, and not that I mass reverted all of their edits. The link you chose appeared to suggest a mass reversion, which was a technical mistake as evidenced by the immediate following self-revert. Again, back to the real issue here: your use of the rollback was given on explicit conditions that were violated, and this should be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the right place for this conversation, but reverting block evasion is explicitly a valid use case for rollback: see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: #5 mentions "by misguided editors" and "unhelpful to WP," which is not necessarily the case here. I think you meant #4? If so, #4 ends with "(but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)." This means that there should be explanations for the removals, i.e. selective removals and not wholesale ones. (Does #4 include socks anyway?) And also to quote #6: "With a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, #4. The "explain" part is about explaining that the user is a sock, which isn't always obvious. And #6 is a separate criterion, not a requirement for all rollbacks, as the rest of the guideline makes clear. But again, this isn't the place—feel free to stop by my talk page if you'd like to talk about it more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: @Just Step Sideways: This privilege should be removed. The capability has its proper uses, but one of them isn't so that someone with a strong POV in a contentious topic can mass-revert the edits of someone with the opposite strong POV. Even if the latter has been blocked as a sock. Yes, it is legal to remove sock edits, but a good editor would review them first and keep what improves the article. Now someone has to go through all the reverts and restore what is salvageable. Many of the reverted edits included good content that someone else would have added if the sock hadn't. As examples of how blindly BilledMammal has been wielding this tool, I mention removal of an academic source, reintroduction of an error and deletion of an infobox. Per full disclosure, I am also involved in this topic, which is why I don't remove the permission myself. Zerotalk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BANREVERT notes that anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason, and WP:ROLLBACKUSE#4 expressly permits rollback to be used to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban. So, [e]ven if the latter has been blocked as a sock does matter a great bit, since rollback is explicitly permitted to be used when encountering edits made by ban-evading sockpuppets.
That being said, WP:BANREVERT also notes that when reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. For this reason, mass rollbacks tend to most prudent for dealing with a VOA or when the edits being rolled back are manually checked before the button is clicked. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:BANREVERT fully, not partially: "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paytonisboss

Reason for requesting rollback rights

Uhm hello I've been wondering if I could get rollback perms I want to help prevent vandalism on Wikipedia and if I'm not able to get rollback perms at the moment how do I sign up for the anti-vandilsim class please feel free to give your honest response as I beleave honesty is key and if you think I'm not prepared yet please tell me I like getting feedback it helps me grow and learn on Wikipedia best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Normally what we are looking for is evidence that a user is already reverting and warning vandals, and I wasn't able to find that. WP:CVU is where to learn more, but I would also note that you could go in your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE if you want to make anti-vandalism work very easy to do. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the advice i appreciate that and yes i will use twinkle and i will start patrolling for vandilisim best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myrealnamm

I think I am ready for Rollback user rights, after being declined twice before. I have 1835 mainspace edits, several months finding and reverting vandalism, and almost always notifying editors about their edits. I understand that Rollback is only used for obvious vandalism, and it should not be used for good-faith edits. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just Step Sideways, if you don't mind, could you review this since you're online? Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=1257316478"