Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Rollback

(add request • view requests)

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

Administrator notation templates

This template is used to answer requests for permissions, especially the rollback user right.

::{{subst:RFPR|option}} ~~~~

The second (unnamed) parameter is optional. It can be omitted or used to specify the admin when marking a request as already done or the number of edits when declining due to inexperience.
Result Code Normalized code
 Done ::{{subst:RFPR|d}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|done}} ~~~~
 Already done by {{admin|X}} ::{{subst:RFPR|ad|X}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|alreadydone|X}} ~~~~
 Revoked ::{{subst:RFPR|r}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|revoked}} ~~~~
 Not done ::{{subst:RFPR|nd}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|notdone}} ~~~~
 Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only {{{X}}} edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. ::{{subst:RFPR|exp|X}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|moreedits|X}} ~~~~
 Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. I see you just also applied for Pending Changes Reviewer. Let's see how you get on with that first and then we'll take another look again when you've made a few more edits. ::{{subst:RFPR|rvw}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|alsorequestedreviewer}} ~~~~
 Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. This is not what Rollback is for. Take a moment to read Wikipedia:Rollback and if that's what you would like to do, you can then check out the Counter Vandalism Unit to learn more. ::{{subst:RFPR|nrb}} ~~~~ ::{{subst:RFPR|notrollback}} ~~~~
Shortcuts

User:Indonesia124

To help me quickly revert massive vandalism. I typically work in pages were vandals show up every now and then, and have a good sense to distinguish between good faith contributions and plain vandalism.--Indonesia124 Talk
 Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 33 edits to mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU and when you have made 200 or so edits to articles you may wish to enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnsmith2116

After having been a Reviewer for nearly three weeks now, I have seen how much reviewing really needs done, as there is always a list at least 15-20 items long that need taken care of, and that's even with the 6,000 + Reviewers that are here. I edit mostly in sports-related articles (mostly in golf), and I have seen quite a number of athletes' articles getting bombarded with spam/vandalism whenever that athlete makes news. I believe being a Rollbacker would come in handy to deal with these types of situations. (I've had to have protection put on the Rory McIlroy article in recent months.) Occasionally, one of the Wikipedia bots catches such things and takes care of it, but often it needs the assistance of a human to keep up with it all. Please allow me the Rollback right. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done though I'm not quite sure what being a reviewer had to do with this. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sue Rangell

About two years ago (I think) my rollback responsibility was removed by an admin after we crossed swords in ANI. I don't recall any specific rollback as the reason I failed to do an edit summary on a particular rollback, but it was more about conflicting views about what "vandalism" was (both our tempers were heated at that time and that didn't help things). Up until then I had been doing considerable good in anti-vandalism and account creation. Since then I have been working mostly in account creation where I am trusted with personal information. I would like to have rollback re-instated so that I can pick up on anti-vandalism once again. I have no issues with the admin that originally removed it, in fact he invited me to re-apply the very next day. It's been a while but I'm finally re-applying because the vandals are going at it overtime this summer and I know my help is really needed. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your rollback permission was removed on 20 January, 2013 by User:Ironholds after you used rollback to undo someone else's revert of your AfD close. The problem that he saw was described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araksi Cetinyan, which was a dispute about your non-admin closure of an AfD. Can you tell us what lessons you would now draw from that particular episode? That looks to have been a very messy AfD, and while others might have agreed with your close, there was a general impression it wasn't appropriate for WP:NAC. Your use of rollback in that case does appear to be contrary to the policy, since undoing an AfD closure is not vandalism. That's a separate issue from the one on whether a NAC was allowable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned about Sue Rangell applying for rollback rights at this time. From February to the end of April almost all her edits were in the area of gun control and in articles where User:Lightbreather was editing, changing or removing her edits. She then stopped editing for a period of time. She returned to active editing this month and again has been editing almost exclusively Lightbreather's edits. Rollback would make it easier to undo changes that were made during her two month absence. I am also concerned about her lack of understanding of the requirements of BLP editing as shown by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#Robert Spitzer (political scientist), and by issues raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sue Rangell. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
← Normally I wouldn't be concerned about an incident from 18 months ago, and the above comment ↑ comes across a bit vengeful, but I have to ask: how often do you find yourself (Sue) hindered by the lack of a rollback button? Your last 500 article-space edits go back to December 2013, and in that time I'm unable to find a single vandalism reversion made with the undo button or an equivalent script. Indeed, most of your reverts appear to be of the same one or two users, and your edit summaries suggest you sometimes become a bit too emotionally involved in disputes. Awaiting a response from Sue Rangell. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, to be clear, I haven't been absent. I've been working daily in account creation. To answer the question, I don't find myself hindered very often by the lack of the rollback button at all. It's easy enough to simply repost a previous version of the article. On the other hand, I WILL be hindered during vandal patrol, because things move so fast sometimes. I also have made a promise to myself not to use my rollback responsibilities at all unless I am doing vandalism patrol. Some of the scripts will not work unless the rollback feature is enabled. Lightbreather (While being mentored by starrygrandma above) has been topic banned for her behaviour and I voluntarily and on my own volition avoided all articles where she was editing in order to avoid further conflicts. I will continue my self imposed interraction ban with Lightbreather. I would think that this alone would show that I'm able to act in a mature manner. I am also trusted with personal user information in account creation, so I would hope that I could also be trusted with rollback responsibilities after all this time. This has nothing to do with Lightbreather, and everything to do with vandalism patrol. Ironholds, who removed my rollback responsibilities originally, invited me to re-apply for them the very next day. I took the removal as a very serious warning, and immediately apoligized, etc. That was way over a year ago. I would like to get back into anti-vandalism again. I really enjoyed the work, and I think I did a lot of good there. If you choose to have me re-apply in six months or something, that's what I'll do, but I understood the message immediately after the incident, and I don't think it will be any clearer six months from now. I consider myself to be a very good Wikipedian, and I think my actions over the last seven or eight years has shown that. Thank you and Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although it appears that I will be topic banned, it does not appear that it is a "done deal." But at any rate, the day after my topic ban was suggested (on July 11), Sue went to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article that I have struggled mightily to improve and removed two whole sections [1] with the edit summary, "Various fixes and restorations." This has been one of my beefs working with her: abuse of WP:ES, especially misleading summaries and WP:REVTALK. (I can give more examples if anyone wishes.) And though she may have quit editing gun-control articles on account of me, it is worth noting that she quit editing them within about one week of their coming under discretionary sanctions after a long ArbCom that was closed April 30. This editor, IMO, has a vengeful streak, and rollback privileges don't seem like a good thing to give someone like that. Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x a million) Why haven't you just asked Ironholds to reinstate you as a rollbacker? Assuming he remembers your case, I'd rather defer to him. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed I could, but he originally told me to re-apply here, and I thought this was the proper proceedure. If you wish, I will ask him right away. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ironholds isn't an admin any more, and can't reinstate the rollback permission. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agggg...I just asked him. Except for this removal, I've had no sanctions, bans, blocks, or any other trouble in all my years on Wikipedia. I've recieved a lot of awards etc., for my past work in anti-vandalism and I just want to get back into that. Can we just do this please? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just suggest granting the bit. If something goes wrong it can be revoked and an exponential increase added to the barrier necessary to return it; this is the internet. There is no real cost to giving someone rollback ;). The worst-case scenario is someone has to spend an entire 20 minutes un-rollbacking edits, which when compared to the potential good additional permissions could do, is an acceptable risk scenario. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The bar for rollback is deliberately low, we don't expect users to be perfect, just competent. That being said, Sue should consider herself warned that any future problems relating to distinguishing between vandalism and other types of edits will most certainly lead to the swift (and probably permanent) removal of this user right at the very least. In other words, don't make me regret this please. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jyoti.mickey

It will help me with anti-vandalism efforts. I have used rollback with Twinkle and gradually I have familiarized myself with Help:Reverting and Rollback. I also want to use Huggle and STiki. Jyoti (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no great concerns with this request, but I don't see quite as much experience with anti-vandalism work as would make me comfortable. Perhaps I've missed some things; could you list a few examples of clear-cut vandalism reversions that you've made recently? Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 20:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Juliancolton, could you review these diff(in clear cases too I have usually put appropriate edit summary and avoided label`ing it Vandalism and used regular undo/rollback). I admit, I may not have a lot of experience with anti-vandalism but I am consistent, competent and have contributed to anti-vandalism without any mistake regularly.
--Jyoti (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Alright, I'll AGF and grant the right. If there's any doubt in your mind as to the intentions of an apparent "vandal", please leave an edit summary instead. Thanks for the quick response. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RGloucester

As one of the main contributors to articles relating to the present situation in Ukraine, I've had to deal with a lot of IP vandalism, and also with constant sock-puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique for more information on that. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for quite a while, but haven't seen the need for this permission until now. Rollback permission would help me stem the tide in this difficult and controversial subject area, and allow me and others to focus on creating content, rather than dealing with constant sock-puppetry and vandalism. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would those edits count as rollback-worthy I wonder? They seemed to be going against consensus, but I would be uneasy with some of that stuff when it comes to rollback. I think the main use for rollback rights is to revert obvious vandalism, although there are exceptions. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. My intent is only to use it for "obvious vandalism", which I'm sure your aware has been quite prolific in recent days. This is even more true due to the reluctance of sysops to protect the pages in question, as there have also been helpful edits by IPs. I would say that, by definition, when a sock-puppet edits they are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and are evading their block. Therefore, reverting their edits (which have been highly disruptive, and not constructive by any means, unless one considers impersonation of sysops and users as constructive…) is quite an appropriate use of rollback. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, unfortunately. Browsing your last 500 edits, I don't see many (any?) examples of vandalism or spam eradication, but rather lots of content maintenance and policing. Far more worryingly, however, you were blocked for edit warring two weeks ago, which is a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. As always, any admin is free to override me here if they believe I'm wrong in my judgement. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, Mr Colton. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rijinatwiki

It would be a great tool to help my anti-vandalism efforts. Also, I am familiar with rollback feature in Twinkle. Thanks. :) (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done though on a mostly unrelated note, I have to say your signature is a bit confusing. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:محمد عصام

I check the Recent changes page for vandals, the right will help me quickly revert vandalism, Thanks MohamedTalk 06:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - you were turned down less than a week ago, and I'm still not 100% convinced, but something tells me you'll be back every few days indefinitely if I don't get it over with now. :) Have fun. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=617210855

Leave a Reply