Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
Rollback
- Cmrc23 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello, I was temporarily granted rollback permissions to see how I do, and they are due to expire on the 27th. I believe I have been diligent and careful with this permission, and I only use it when necessary. I always warn users and I create discussions on article talk pages where necessary. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary rollback rights by Pppery (expires 18:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmrc23: It looks like you're using generic rollback even on edits that aren't obvious vandalism (where vandalism is defined as being "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia") or other categories of rollback that don't need an explanatory edit summary. For example, while removing a reference might be vandalism, it could also be based on good-faith belief that the source is unreliable. Similarly, this rollback doesn't seem to be of obvious vandalism. Going forward, would you include the reason in the edit summary when reverting any edits that don't fall into one of criteria 1–5 at WP:ROLLBACKUSE? SilverLocust 💬 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a little hasty with those two in particular, but I will make sure. I presumed my warning on their talk page was enough, but I try to not use it when it's not necessary (again, was hasty there, apologise) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 19:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmrc23: It looks like you're using generic rollback even on edits that aren't obvious vandalism (where vandalism is defined as being "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia") or other categories of rollback that don't need an explanatory edit summary. For example, while removing a reference might be vandalism, it could also be based on good-faith belief that the source is unreliable. Similarly, this rollback doesn't seem to be of obvious vandalism. Going forward, would you include the reason in the edit summary when reverting any edits that don't fall into one of criteria 1–5 at WP:ROLLBACKUSE? SilverLocust 💬 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I’m requesting rollback tool to help with vandalism fighting more effectively. I’ve been active in counter-vandalism work and have a good understanding of policies like WP:VAND and WP:AGF. While I’ve made mistakes in the past, I’ve taken the feedback onboard, slowed down, and focused on making more accurate judgements.
Rollback would allow me to handle clear vandalism more efficiently without cluttering edit histories. I’m committed to using it responsibly and only for obvious cases of vandalism, leaving more complex issues for discussion or reporting.
Thank you for considering my request. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)