Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Below is an archive of denied requests for rollback privileges, sorted by month.
Contents |
[edit] This month
1
[edit] June 3
[edit] rrcatto
- Rrcatto (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- to assist my efforts to revert vandalism rrcatto (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done for now. You have no edits. Please spend a few weeks showing accurate reversal of vandalism and then re-apply. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm - how can you have no edits at all and an entry on the request for rollback page? Answer - this was requested by User:Richard Catto. Richard, can you clarify what you're after here? Pedro : Chat 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just realised. ;) Bit of a dumb moment there... PeterSymonds (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, the only blue link for this user is rather interesting. Probably should be blanked. Parental advisory: don't let your children near it Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] StewieGriffin!
- StewieGriffin! (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- I think I have proved myself further. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with this. Especially not mine! Rollback could definately help me. If you want to know more about me see RADWP. Please see I have tried anti-vandalism, some of my reverts, wrong, I know!, but the majority are good. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done It was agreed that you should wait a few weeks if not months. Your last request was only last week. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 4
[edit] Spyfox5400
- Spyfox5400 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- Need it to deal with people vandalizing politicans pages, and especially with people putting racial slurs on Barack Obamas PageSpyfox5400 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 6
[edit] FireDreams4
- FireDreams4 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
If you have ever vandalised on Wikipedia; you should be ashamed for life. Vandalism is basically a war against the Vandals and the Anti-Vandals. I am an Anti-Vandal for LIFE and nothing could change that. Please, help me rollback their cruel, cruel, ways of having "fun" so we can help stop vandalism once and for all! =D
- Not done unfortunately: after a look through your contributions, you haven't done any vandalism-reverting at all, and therefore, I'm unable to judge how you'll use rollback. Get some practice reverting vandalism using the undo feature first, and then come back in a couple of weeks. Acalamari 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pirkid
- Pirkid (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- I often find myself coming across vandalism when I access Wikipedia (sometimes from my own schoolmates, and find trying to undo major changes a big pain. I am looking towards this pretige so I can further my Wikipedia contributions, and any reponse would be appriciated. Pir (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done You have no history of vandal fighting. Develop some more experience using the undo feature and reapply in a few weeks. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 8
[edit] Dagoth Ur, Mad God
- Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- I'd like to revert some vandalism. I will not misuse this tool. Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done. I'm afraid that as far as I can tell, you don't have enough experience to show that you can identify what kind of edits you would revert using rollback. If you want to acquire rollback, I'd encourage you to become more active in reverting vandalism to show that you understand exactly what the function should be used for. Alex Muller 10:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 9
[edit] WikiPediaAid
- WikiPediaAid (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- I would like to help Wikipedia combat and clean up vandalism as much as possible.
- Not done I see little to no vandalism reverts. Try using tools like WP:TW or the undo button to revert some vandalism and come back and ask for the tool again. Tiptoety talk 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just edit conflicted with you Tiptoety, and I actually was putting done on it, and I've given him rollback rights. I'll go change it back so we can further discuss. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I was looking at this, and had come to the same conclusion as Tiptoety - very little in the way of vandal reversion. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Any progress on where to go from here, chaps? I'm not seeing any discussion on it; have I missed it? Anthøny 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to hear Keeper's reason for giving this user the rights before I make a decision. Tiptoety talk 18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I may have been too quick, but I saw a user that has been here (off and on) for 3+ years, with yes, a low edit count, but also a clean blocklog, useful contribs. I didn't see any red flags as far as userwarnings on his talk. Knowing how easily it can be removed if abused, I went ahead and granted the rights. I've since removed the rights in order to discuss. Other thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Like has been said before, every admin has there own requirements for granting rollback to users and mine include the requesting user having done some anti-vandalism work prior to requesting the rights (which I did not see). But if Keeper trusts this user with the rights I am not opposes the them having it. Tiptoety talk 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not opposed to them not having it either :-) My criteria for granting are admittedly lax - I look for clean logs, clean talkpage, time/edit count sufficiency. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that they should try doing some RC patrol for a few days and come back. I feel that it can be granted rather easily, but once it is removed for abuse or a misunderstanding it is much harder to get back and it always fallows the user in their rights log. I say mark in Not done with no prejudice to re-request in a few days. Tiptoety talk 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Would you like to go to the talkpage of said user, or shall I? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that they should try doing some RC patrol for a few days and come back. I feel that it can be granted rather easily, but once it is removed for abuse or a misunderstanding it is much harder to get back and it always fallows the user in their rights log. I say mark in Not done with no prejudice to re-request in a few days. Tiptoety talk 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to them not having it either :-) My criteria for granting are admittedly lax - I look for clean logs, clean talkpage, time/edit count sufficiency. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Like has been said before, every admin has there own requirements for granting rollback to users and mine include the requesting user having done some anti-vandalism work prior to requesting the rights (which I did not see). But if Keeper trusts this user with the rights I am not opposes the them having it. Tiptoety talk 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I may have been too quick, but I saw a user that has been here (off and on) for 3+ years, with yes, a low edit count, but also a clean blocklog, useful contribs. I didn't see any red flags as far as userwarnings on his talk. Knowing how easily it can be removed if abused, I went ahead and granted the rights. I've since removed the rights in order to discuss. Other thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to hear Keeper's reason for giving this user the rights before I make a decision. Tiptoety talk 18:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just edit conflicted with you Tiptoety, and I actually was putting done on it, and I've given him rollback rights. I'll go change it back so we can further discuss. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done I see little to no vandalism reverts. Try using tools like WP:TW or the undo button to revert some vandalism and come back and ask for the tool again. Tiptoety talk 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)(Indent) I was a little concerned about this edit at first, which seemed to be reverting a legitimate edit using a rollback type tool. However, other editors have also reverted possible vandalism from the same user on the same page. Whilst I also look for a bit of active vandal reversion before granting rollback, I'm happy to assume good faith in this case. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 10
[edit] Amor amor
- Amor amor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- To help fight vandalism with somewhat ease &huggle Amor amor (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done - I see little if any evidence of vandal fighting by ordinary means at present. I suggest doing some recent changes patrolling, and request again in a week or so. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 13
[edit] Hanzo2050
- Hanzo2050 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- Give some help for "Great Hanshin earthquake" and others Hanzo2050 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done - I'm afraid you don't have enough experience here to show what kind of edits you'll be reverting with rollback. This is especially important with an application like Huggle. Get some more experience reverting vandalism and reapply here in a few weeks. Alex Muller 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] zaukul
- Zaukul (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- I am interested in assisting with removal of vandalism using the huggle tool. Zaukul (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done Hi Zaukul. I noticed you've only made a handful of edits after about a one year hiatus? Would you perhaps return in a few weeks of editing so that we may have something recent to go on? Thanks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ahonc
- Ahonc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- To revert vandalism, spam and other wrong information. Ahonc (Talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, to be honest: I only found a few reverts in the last thousand edits or so, and in addition, I found these reversions of my edits (which were certainly not vandalism) using undo. Granted, they happened a little over a year ago, but still, I'm not sure here. I'd like more input from other admins first. Acalamari 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also looking...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Pluses: Clean block log, been around awhile. Detractions: No real evidence of vandalism reversion, every edit marked "minor" whether it is or isn't. I would support rollback after a few weeks of solid vandy-patrol/approrpriate use of "undo", but perhaps too soon. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned. Vandalism and spam, definitely, but wrong information may not necessarily be vandalism. Even if it's suspected of being a good faith edit, rollback should never be used. I would object to granting at this time, and advise the user to show clear evidence of understanding, and reapply after a few weeks. Just my 2p. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Pluses: Clean block log, been around awhile. Detractions: No real evidence of vandalism reversion, every edit marked "minor" whether it is or isn't. I would support rollback after a few weeks of solid vandy-patrol/approrpriate use of "undo", but perhaps too soon. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also looking...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done Three hesitations = not done. Feel free to re-request after a few weeks of successful vandalism reversion using other methods like undo. thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, to be honest: I only found a few reverts in the last thousand edits or so, and in addition, I found these reversions of my edits (which were certainly not vandalism) using undo. Granted, they happened a little over a year ago, but still, I'm not sure here. I'd like more input from other admins first. Acalamari 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] June 14
[edit] Der_Ritter
- Der_Ritter (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- Just hate vandalism, I'd like to help the crew fighting it...
- Not done Sorry, not enough activity or evidence of vandal fighting. Please apply when you have around 500 edits, and when you've shown clear evidence of vandal-fighting using the undo tool. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nappymonster
- Nappymonster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) | give rollback
- I would like to help the fight against vandalism more efficiently, and a tool such as huggle would greatly help. In order to use huggle, I need rollback privilages. I'm currently helping against vandalism, though without software, it really isn't very effective. Nappymonster (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done. Thank you for your contributions. I noticed that you've only been "back editing" for a couple of days. Please get a few weeks under your belt showing that you can properly use the "undo" feature and make appropriate warnings on user talk pages. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please put new requests at the bottom of the page. |
</noinclude>