Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

Rollback

(add request · view requests)

User:Rasteem

• Rasteem (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) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.

I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteem Talk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteem Talk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteem Talk ®asteem Talk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteem Talk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just took another look at your recent contributions and I'm still seeing instances where you are reverting edits and failing to notify the editor: 1, 2, 3. Didn't you just promise that you would be more diligent about this? -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Sangsangaplaz

• Sangsangaplaz (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) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I have used Twinkle to revert around 800 edits but would like to use a tool like Huggle to be more effective. I use Ultraviolet but it's still incomplete. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Understandable. Due to my forgetfulness I keep forgetting my wikipedia password so I tend to be gone for long periods of time. Although, when should I reapply. Should it be in around a month of activity? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal

• BilledMammal (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) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Reverting vandalism and removing edits by sock-puppets. Also if my move script breaks again. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi BilledMammal. Not sure if you knew this but folks requesting rollback are usually doing so because they want access to high-volume anti-vandalism/RecentChanges patrol tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal. Is there any reason why something like Twinkle is insufficient for your needs? I did a quick review of your recent contributions and I'm not seeing a high volume of reverts that would necessitate rollback. -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: @Fastily: Looking at BilledMammal's use of the rollback (31 edits) so far, they have involved removing sourced content from articles, and are seemingly in violation of "Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits by sockpuppets are by definition in bad faith. Further, given the frequent source misrepresentation issues by that sockpuppet, we can’t trust that the presence of a source means the content is supported - and thus it is better to remove them all. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect as WP:GF says: “Violation of policies—such as engaging in sockpuppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith.”

Also that’s the second half of what I quoted. The first half explicitly says “vandalism only.” Sockpuppetry although disruptive is not vandalism. You should revert what you disagree with, not mass remove large chunks of what appears to be reliably sourced content.

If you have concerns, which is legitimate given the socking, you can check each of these sources yourself. Otherwise, mass removing everything is doing more harm than good. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would you also argue against reverting edits by Icewhiz’s sockpuppets?

Regardless, this is common practice, and if you are willing to take full responsibility for CAE’s edits you are welcome to restore them. Personally, given the frequent issues with these edits, I would not be willing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, a couple of days ago you were reverting sockpuppet edits with the same justification - what’s different here? BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would also argue against that. There were many articles even created from scratch by Icewhiz’s several socks including Cuisine of Jerusalem, and the Jordanian Option which I find to be incredibly biased and have not touched. I reverted what I disagreed with, I did not mass revert everything. When linking to my reverts of that sock to make an argument, please maintain honesty by presenting the full picture, and not by presenting a misleading one. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t see your self-revert - I was looking at just your edits with a relevant edit summary - and regardless, there were many more examples I could have chosen, unless you are saying you’ve self-reverted all of them?

In any case, this is standard practice, and given the widespread issues with this editors contributions I think it was necessary. Of course, as I said before, if you are willing to assume responsibility for the edits you may restore them. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am clearly saying that I selectively reverted some of the socks edits, and not that I mass reverted all of their edits. The link you chose appeared to suggest a mass reversion, which was a technical mistake as evidenced by the immediate following self-revert. Again, back to the real issue here: your use of the rollback was given on explicit conditions that were violated, and this should be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this conversation, but reverting block evasion is explicitly a valid use case for rollback: see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: #5 mentions "by misguided editors" and "unhelpful to WP," which is not necessarily the case here. I think you meant #4? If so, #4 ends with "(but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)." This means that there should be explanations for the removals, i.e. selective removals and not wholesale ones. (Does #4 include socks anyway?) And also to quote #6: "With a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, #4. The "explain" part is about explaining that the user is a sock, which isn't always obvious. And #6 is a separate criterion, not a requirement for all rollbacks, as the rest of the guideline makes clear. But again, this isn't the place—feel free to stop by my talk page if you'd like to talk about it more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: @Just Step Sideways: This privilege should be removed. The capability has its proper uses, but one of them isn't so that someone with a strong POV in a contentious topic can mass-revert the edits of someone with the opposite strong POV. Even if the latter has been blocked as a sock. Yes, it is legal to remove sock edits, but a good editor would review them first and keep what improves the article. Now someone has to go through all the reverts and restore what is salvageable. Many of the reverted edits included good content that someone else would have added if the sock hadn't. As examples of how blindly BilledMammal has been wielding this tool, I mention removal of an academic source, reintroduction of an error and deletion of an infobox. Per full disclosure, I am also involved in this topic, which is why I don't remove the permission myself. Zero^talk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:CFA

• CFA (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) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hi, I'd like to request rollback to use Huggle. I was granted it on trial in April 2023 but went on a year-long Wikibreak almost immediately afterwards. A request I made in June was denied because I hadn't been active for very long. I've been much more active since then. Thanks. C F A 💬 03:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm initially inclined to grant the right, seeing as you have both New Page Reviewer and Page Mover (which generally require higher levels of trust). However, after reading this archived talk comment from August, where you appear to agree that you were edit warring, I do have a few questions:

If you are granted this right, under what circumstances do you plan to use the vanilla (i.e. out-of-the box, in-browser) rollback functions? Will you use vanilla rollback while reverting vandalism through Special:RecentChanges, while disputing content edits made by other editors in lieu of using the undo tool, or will you simply use this right for Huggle?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I might use it to revert sockpuppet edits or blatant vandalism, though Twinkle rollback works just fine for that. I'm mainly looking to use it for Huggle. I wouldn't use it to dispute content edits because it's easier to add an edit summary with Twinkle rollback or Undo. C F A 💬 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. The reason I asked is because it is prohibited to use the vanilla rollback tool while disputing good-faith/non-vandal content edits. Keep this in mind, and all should be fine. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)