Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

January 02[edit]

User:Mikaey[edit]

  • Mikaey (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
I stated when I joined that one of my main goals was to help stamp out vandalism, but I quickly grew tired of that as I would frequently have to click on the "Recent Changes" link, go through the list, and find something to revert...many times only to find that someone else had found it before I did. I'd like to start using Huggle to help out with this. Mikaey (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done As far as I can see you do have nearly no experience in reverting vandalism. I may recommend using tools like Twinkle or undo in order to gain some experience in this area before reapplying. — Aitias // discussion 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 04[edit]

User:DougsTech[edit]

Hi, I'd like to use rollback to assist in vandalism fighting.DougsTech (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per this log. You had it removed previously for abuse and I don't see evidence of improvement since then. None of your reverts since the removal have been of vandalism. either way (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at the allegations, or just look at the log?DougsTech (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to grant here, given the time since removal and positive contributions. Peter Symonds is no longer an admin allthough his input would still be useful if possible). However no big deal and all that says we trust the user .... Pedro :  Chat  23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apoligize if my past edits have offended the community. I will not make edits like that again. If you will look furthur in my log, you will find MANY anti-vandalism edits. DougsTech (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think other admin input is needed here. Sorry, I'm about to go off-line. My position is clear, but more thoughts are as ever welcome. Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to say no to this. Since his block August of 2008, when his rollback was removed for reverts such as this and this (I would assume...I'll ask PeterSymonds if he'll comment here), there have been no vandalism reverts, just three undos of non-vandalism. When a user has a rollback removal because of abuse, I want to see evidence of improved reverting for awhile after the removal. either way (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the actions in August, I left wikipedia, not wanting to come back. This is the reason for lack of edits.This was a mistake I may not have caught. The rollback page says that it can be used on ones own talk page regarding the other edit. DougsTech (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. My reasons: a revert to an article which was clearly not vandalism. Also this discussion about obvious abuse of other tools, which led to a block. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my initial thoughts I think there is consensus here for not regranting the tool. Please feel free to ask for it again soon, and please understand why granting a potentially powerful tool is (or is not) done with good thoughts and genuine intentions. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I want the tool under this user account is because of the history of the account. I could easily get all the tools back under a totally different account, if I desired to do so. But instead, I ask for them in a civil manner thinking of this DougsTech (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I won't comment on whether I think it is (or isn't) appropriate to grant the tool, being involved in its original removal, I can't understand why you can't wait a few weeks and show a bit more skill and ability. I'm a huge fan of WP:FORG; however, I think it's only right that a display of trust be shown before giving this tool back. Edits like this are concerning as well; while rollback can technically be used in userspace, the edits were not vandalism, and in my opinion, it's inappropriate to display the badge for a tool you don't have. I just feel you need more experience, but that's just from a personal point of view. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Point of clarity) while rollback wasn't used for the reversions of Pedro and Neurolysis, the fact that the edits were marked as minor, and there was no edit summary, suggests that rollback would've been used on those edits. 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

January 06[edit]

User:HarlandQPitt[edit]

I've been a very active user when it comes to reverting vandalism, and tagging articles for speedy deletion that do not fit the scope of Wikipedia. Rollback will allow me to edit vandalism much more quickly and fix pages faster than I have been able to. HarlandQPitt (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done As you currently have only 55 edits, there is no way to adequately evaluate you. Please use such tools as the undo button and/or Twinkle, and come back in a few months when you have another 300 edits. Tiptoety talk 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 07[edit]

User:jasepl[edit]

  • Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
Many of the pages on my watchlist are under constant vandalisim. But for some reason or another when I ask them to be protected they are, more often that not, declined. It has become very frustrating reverting vandalisim - there are a handful of people who seem to love repeatedly adding incorrect information in certain articles. The rollback feature would be great. Jasepl (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done because this is almost a direct copy of the request below. Why do you want the rollback tool? Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User has some recent history of edit warring. I would not grant rollback at this time either.—Sandahl (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kieran4[edit]

Many of the pages on my watchlist are under constant vandalisim. But for some reason or another when I ask them to be protected they are, more often that not, declined. It has become frustrating reverting vandalisim and the rollback feature would, of course, help me. Kieran4 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done - I'm not seeing that you have a whole lot of experience with vandalism. What I did see looks good, but they seem to be few and far between. I have no problem with another admin granting the tool, but I'd prefer a little more experience. You may want to consider using tools such as Twinkle or popups to help you out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 08[edit]

User:Porchcrop[edit]

I want to revert vandalism quicker
  •  Not done - You have very few edits here and I'd prefer to see a little more experience with vandalism before you are given this tool. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 10[edit]

User:Sulfis[edit]

  • Sulfis (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
Time to contribute something back to the community. Even though,I have been fighting vandals for only a short time, I have made quite a few reversions of edits by vandals using Twinkle, none of which have been challenged. The Twinkle is quite unreliable for me and does not load the buttons always. I promise to use this feature responsibly. Sulfis (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done As of right now you only have 85 edits, and because of that I am not able to adequately asses you. While the majority of your vandalism reverts appear just fine, I ask that you continue using twinkle, get at least 100 more edits, then come back and refile your request. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 12[edit]

User:Raunak[edit]

  • Raunak (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
Due to vandalism at large on recent changes, i had liked to get this...so that getting rid of vandalism is done effectively by me..Thanks —Raunak (Discuss ) 10:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of your 130 or so edits I can see only one instance where you have used undo. In general a modicum of evidence that you know how to distinguish good / bad edits is prefered before granting the tool. I'm not going to outright decline as I'd welcome other input however. Pedro :  Chat  10:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only undid edits were you reverting your own edits. We can't necessarily tell if you know what vandalism is yet if you only used it to self-revert. I did see three automated reverts, but I still agree that more experience is needed. But keep up the good work. — RyanCross (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done — per the points explained by Pedro above. More experience in reverting vandalism is needed. I may recommend using tools like Twinkle or undo in order to gain some experience in this area before reapplying. — Aitias // discussion 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 13[edit]

User:Iudaeus[edit]

I'd like to help wikipedia more Iudaeus (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You currently on have ~225 edits, with the majority of them being userspace edits. As such it makes it difficult to adequately evaluate your potential use of the tool. I encourage you to revert some vandalism using tools such as twinkle or the undo button, then come back when you have 400 or so more edits. Tiptoety talk 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 16[edit]

User:Anhydrobiosis[edit]

Want to use huggle. Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Not done Recent history of edit warring and your talkpage show that you are not ready for rollback at this time.—Sandahl (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:manadude2[edit]

As I use Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, this right will come in useful to me as I can revert vandalism quicker and I can be more efficient. manadude2 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. You have only about 600 contributions, and very little experience in vandal-fighting. Please re-apply in a couple weeks when you have more experience. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:JE[edit]

  • JE (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
General anti-vandalism use, will use on my off days from the base. JE (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, but you have just 500 contributions, and you've gone months without contributing. Come back in 2 or 3 weeks with some more consistent editing. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 18[edit]

User:Vinni3[edit]

  • Vinni3 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
Request denied once - I have been on the recent changes patrol like suggested, and I would like this feature to rv vandalism and test edits more quickly. Vinni3 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You have very little experience in reverting vandalism. Also, such edits do worry me. — Aitias // discussion 12:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 19[edit]

User:Vhoscythe[edit]

I need it to use Huggle. Vhoscythechatter-sign 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, but you have very little experience with vandal fighting. Please re-apply in a few weeks with more experience. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:mister1nothing[edit]

To be able to use Huggle, and (most of the functions of Lupin's (still working) anti vandal tool
 Not done You do have nearly no experience in reverting vandalism. I may recommend using tools like Twinkle or undo in order to gain some experience in this area before reapplying. — Aitias // discussion 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sort of understand...I don't even have 500 mainspace edits counted yet :/ M1N (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Twinkle is almost as good as Huggle.M1N (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaron D. Ball[edit]

to make the experience of fixing vandalism less exhausting Aaron D. Ball (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, but you only have 100 edits, of which a few were in the past month. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 21[edit]

User:Aaroncrick[edit]

So i'll be able to fight vandalism more easily. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This worries me, can you provide some details? Tiptoety talk 01:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was in the past and i've stopped all that now; it wasn't my account either. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, how was it not your account if you just admitted to socking? Tiptoety talk 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was meaning I've stopped the silly vandalizing of pages, a long time ago and i want to help fight vandalism; The Lukeyslegends account was a mates and not mine. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining what's up with this account then: Special:Contributions/Lukeyslegends1? It would appear to be related to the account you were previously blocked for sock/meatpuppetry with, and I've just blocked it as such. It seems odd that you should happen to be the one reverting its edits, considering your past history. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Per sock concerns. Also, you stopped editing right around the time Hersfold blocked Lukeyslegends1 (talk · contribs) which makes me think you got hit by the autoblock. Tiptoety talk 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 23[edit]

User:Vanjagenije[edit]

I want to fight against vandalism on Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done As far as I can see you do have nearly no experience in reverting vandalism. I may recommend using tools like Twinkle or undo in order to gain some experience in this area before reapplying. — Aitias // discussion 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:mackiefan2004[edit]

Make removing vandalism much more efficient and easier while browsing and finding it on the wiki Mackiefan2004 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Your account is too new (editcount-wise) to determine if you would use rollback correctly. Consider using WP:UNDO or a tool like WP:TWINKLE to combat vandalism and re-apply in a few weeks. –xeno (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 24[edit]

User:67.148.15.37[edit]

Reason for requesting rollback
{{not done}} User rights can only be assigned to registered accounts. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you deny me. 67.148.15.37 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because user rights (rollback included) cannot be granted to anonymous users. It is not technically possible. If you have an account, please log in, otherwise see Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more information. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it technically possible to change the rules, I really need to have rollback. 67.148.15.37 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the software will not allow for change rights for anonymous users. It's nothing to do with rules. If you wish to use rollback, create an account and demonstrate a good understanding of reverting vandalism. There is nothing more I can say. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried creating an account, but all the usernames are taken. 67.148.15.37 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by “[...] but all the usernames are taken.”? — Aitias // discussion 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how to create a account, please help!! 67.148.15.37 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried using this link? :) — Aitias // discussion 23:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok!! Thanks for your help.. 67.148.15.37 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Happy to help. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for bot, - IP can register or sign in if they have an account. Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buddha24[edit]

I want to fight vandalism Buddha24 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Your last undo without a summary was this in July, which was not vandalism. Please demonstrate a better understanding of what blatant vandalism is using Twinkle or undo, and re-apply when you feel more comfortable. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DylanIloveYou[edit]

I currently use Lupins anti-vandalism tool, Huggle, Twinkle, and friendly, and I want to see if this tool works better than the others. DylanIloveYou DylanIloveYou (Talk) 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Just a few days ago I reverted a revert of yours that was inappropriate. I think you need to take it slower if you wish to use powerful tools like huggle. Furthermore the majority of edits are to your userspace at the moment, so I will decline this request for now, and ask you to re-apply in a few weeks when you have more experience. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 26[edit]

User:Vectorville[edit]

help fight vandals. Vectorville (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, but you have less than 10 edits. I would expect to see a few hundred before re-considering. Regards, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why??? Vectorville (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because in order to trust you with rollback, I have to be able to determine via your contributions if you have sufficient experience with editing and vandalism-fighting. As you have little or no experience in either of those, I'm afraid I cannot grant rollback at this time. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, shouldn't everybody have rollback?? Vectorville (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should they? That's a matter of personal opinion. Will they? No, unfortunately. Please re-apply for rollback in a couple months once you have some editing experience under your belt. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many edits should I have??? Vectorville (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the undo function and Twinkle. When get some experience with handling vandalism come back as Juliancolten advises and apply again.—Sandahl (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okula dokal, thanks for advice!!!! Vectorville (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metro Sex[edit]

It would be useful tool in fighting vandalism. Metro Sex (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Your account is too new (registered yesterday). I can't see much reverting either. I think it would benefit you to wait for now. Read up on policies, etc. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:構成上都十分多样[edit]

多上 分多样構成 多样 構成上都十分多样 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Your account is too new to accurate determine if you would use rollback properly. Consider fighting vandalism using WP:UNDO or WP:TWINKLE and reapply in the future. –xeno (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 29[edit]

User:Tothwolf[edit]

Rollback would drastically cut down on the time required for me to revert vandalism, especially for cases were a vandal has made consecutive edits. Tothwolf (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Sorry, but you only have about 100 edits. Please re-apply after a few weeks. Regards, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 30[edit]

User:Punk Boi 8[edit]

I have done RC patrol in the past, and hold the position on Simple English Wikipedia as Da Punk '95. Requesting Rollback.  Punk Boi 8  talk  07:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to respectfully suggest that a user just off an 18 month ban for general disruption and subsequent sockpuppetry shouldn't be given rollback within a week of returning. I'll leave the final decision to one of my colleagues, though. Daniel (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Too soon after the end of your ban, per the above from Daniel. Pedro :  Chat  07:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erik9[edit]

  • Erik9 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)
To revert vandalism Erik9 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Sorry, 54 edits are not enough. Please gain some more experience before reapplying. — Aitias // discussion 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 31[edit]

User:E0steven[edit]

Greatly speeds the reversion of malicious edits. Helps cleanup Wikipedia one vandalization at a time; albeit at a faster rate.

E0steven (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as of yet. You're doing great work so far, but you have 76 edits, which is too few. I'd like to see at least 100-200 before granting the tool. Re-apply in a week or so and I'll happily grant the permission. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll reapply in due time. I understand paying your dues, taking your turn, and gaining some trust. Thanks and cheers! E0steven (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Thanks for your understanding. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Denied/January_2009

Leave a Reply