Common
Uncommon
Logs
Special

Rollback

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)
Shortcuts
Please review Wikipedia:Rollback before making a request. Applicants with fewer than 200 mainspace edits are unlikely to be granted this right. More importantly, applicants must have a measurable track record of counter-vandalism and no recent history of edit warring. The counter-vandalism training program is available if you wish to gain experience in handling vandalism.

User:SkyeWolf369

Hello, I am SkyeWolf369 I am requesting rollback rights because my previous request was denied and I have gotten more experience. I would like rollback to help fight vandalism and use more anti-vandalism tools like huggle. Thanks! SkyeWolf369 (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([1]) and has 169 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 12:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we temporarily put this on hold I didnt realize I didnt have the 200 mainspace edits so I hope we can put this on hold until then. SkyeWolf369 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) @SkyeWolf369—You can place the ((withdrawn)) template if you wish to withdraw this request. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I resubmit it once I get 200 mainspace edits? SkyeWolf369 (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) @SkyeWolf369—Yes; nobody is going to stop you. (Note that you might want to wait a little longer.) — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn SkyeWolf369 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as  Not done per above -FASTILY 00:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily Can I actually just unwithdraw this one now that I have 200 mainspace edits. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 19:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyWolf369: This application has already been closed and may not be able to be reopened. You'll probably need to create a new one. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 01:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) (watching)[reply]
It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to make someone re-make a request when the only reason it was closed was due to a withdrawal. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: I do understand that it is probably not ideal; however, wouldn't re-opening a closed case mess up the archival process of the page, as MusikBot would scan the page for closed requests (i.e. ones with "done" or "not done") and archive them after a specific amount of time? Of course, I don't operate or program bots and I may be wrong - I'm just trying to understand the archival process of permission pages like this one. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 04:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that will cause issues (though other administrators far more experienced with user rights can correct me), as you can disable those templates by replacing ((not done)) with ((tl|not done)). Given that the user in question got rollback in the end, I suppose it ended well for all. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SkyWolf369

Re-requesting due to achieving 200 Mainspace edits meeting the qualifications for rollback permissions. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 19:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As 3PPYB6 said above and I am echoing, you may want to wait a little longer. Zippybonzo | talk 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I have been editing for a decent amount of time but my primary focus will be anti vandalism work so I would really benefit from this. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 19:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Borderline case, given that OP hasn't been actively editing for very long. However, reverts look good, and I haven't observed any obvious red flags. -FASTILY 08:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've reviewed the user's anti-vandalism work and from what I can see it is immaculate. The user is mentored by an established editor and is straightforward enough about this being all they're here to do, and I honestly don't see anything to be concerned about. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds and all that ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaseng55

Hello. I'm Kaseng55. I'm re-requesting rollback rights because I have reach more than 200 edits, however most of them are counter vandalism edits so I don't know if that counts as anti-vandalism is my primary thing in Wikipedia. I'm getting good at identifying what is "Unexplained removal of sourced content". I patrol the edit filter log, usually the recent change log, sometime the new page, and rarely, the user creation log. Rollback seems to be faster for me so I can make use of the rollback thing in RedWarn and so I can use Huggle. I use Twinkle, but sometime it's slow without rollback. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your strange behavior around SPI? This thread with @Blablubbs contains numerous examples of poor conduct and questionable policy knowledge. -FASTILY 05:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, an SPI is like a court case. When you add comments in the SPI, you are actually being the juror. And the CheckUsers and the Clerks are the judge. The user who start the report is the prosecutor. The sockpuppeter is the defendant. If the sockpuppeter is blocked or banned. this means that they have been found guilty. If not, then they are found not guilty. And the reason for LTA redirect to the real user was because I couldn’t actually find a rule for it so I was being bold in this scenario. And the troll feeding was because the sockpuppet tried to taunt us, claiming they are unstoppable or there are no sleepers. And the vote was (Well it’s not actually a vote, it was a consensus) me being the juror. And the other problem was me trying to be bold in these scenario. Any more question you would like to ask? Kaseng55 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaseng55 - that is not at all what happens in SPI - we communicate and collaborate to analyse behaviour of accounts to find out whether it is necessary to block them. The clerks merely endorse check user requests and archive cases, and the Checkusers just link accounts. I’m not sure where this ‘court case’ scenario came from but I recommend you contact a clerk and see if they can help you with understanding SPI cases and the policies around them - I am also interested as to what made you think of the clerks as judges in a court case when on the info page about clerks it says they have no special standing in the community. Zippybonzo | talk 07:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then they must be lawyer/attorney then. Kaseng55 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And SPI cannot be used for ongoing cases and vandalism that requires urgent attention? Kaseng55 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You have a serious misunderstanding of the whole countervandalism process. I am a CheckUser and I am absolutely not a judge, SPI is not a court, and there are no lawyers. It is not an adversarial process at all. SPI does not handle vandalism at all – SPI is where we attempt to identify and handle sockpuppetry. AIV handles vandalism. Until you have a better grasp of how we work, I don't think you need rollback. Work without it for at least three months; then you can apply again. Katietalk 20:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sajaypal007

Hi, I am sajaypal007, I have been on wikipedia for more than three years and have made almost 2,500 edits most in last two years as I became active editor. I mainly edit indian history and caste topics of India and hence have to deal with a lot of vandalism. I would like to have Rollback rights to do it efficiently. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bonoahx

I have been on Wikipedia for a little under 10 years and have been more active over the past two years. I am generally active in tennis articles and often try to contribute to RfD discussions and similar. I think I have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and have listened to other editors on the occasions I might have got things wrong. I am requesting rollback rights so I can more efficiently contribute to recent changes patrolling and help tackle vandalism, particularly within tennis which can often have issues with vandalism. Bonoahx (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you want the right, please spend a few weeks patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & RedWarn can help with that) before reapplying. Thanks, FASTILY 08:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Little grape

Hi - I'd like to request rollback rights to make removal of vandalism and puffery easier and quicker. Little grape (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hello. I see that you have made only one undo in your contributions. And there is not much experience in reverting vandalism as well. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 02:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you want the right, please spend a few weeks patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & RedWarn can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please start warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, FASTILY 08:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peculiar Undertone

Hello, I am requesting rollback permissions, I have done anti-vandalism work and wish to continue so using Huggle. I have 200 edits.

Thank you. Peculiar Undertone (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 190 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 09:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I noticed you started actively editing a week ago. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend more time gaining experience editing Wikipedia before assigning you advanced permissions. Also, please start warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, FASTILY 00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aidan9382

Been reverting vandalism as one of my things on wikipedia for a while, and thought it would be more convenient to be able to revert some edits instead of going through the undo page with how my WiFi is right now. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is not always an undo alternative - rollback is typically for use when you find multiple instances of vandalism at once and you can use it to revert them all - you would have to use undo even If you had bad WiFi as you need to provide an edit summary unless it is vandalism. Zippybonzo | talk 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far over what ive seen, im not normally required to provide an edit summary as its blatant vandalism i commonly hunt for. Sorry if my wording was a little wrong there. Aidan9382 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you want the right, please spend a few weeks patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & RedWarn can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please start warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, FASTILY 00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More