Rollback
- ( • view requests)
User:Xender Lourdes
- Xender Lourdes (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 had applied for Rollback on 3 March 2016. The request was turned down by Only giving very valid points and reasoning. Only also advised me to start leaving edit summaries. I also got additional inputs from Quinto Simmaco. I have worked on the advice and am re-applying. The reviewing editor may like to see the following:
- My rollbacks/reverts
- My pending changes advanced review log; placed here as per WP:RLB, an administrative instruction I authored subsequently for administrators granting rollback rights.
- Usernames I have reported at AIV
- Usernames I have reported at UAA
- My edit summaries
Please feel free to ask me for clarifications. Or in case this request is not approved, please don't hesitate to leave suggestions on any area that I may be missing. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 07:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at your contribution history you have made a grand total of three revisions in the last two months, all of which were made this morning. Why do you feel rollback permissions would be of any use to you, since you don't appear to do anything that would involve them? I'm not sure why you're raising UAA here, which has nothing to do with rollback. ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Iridescent, hi. I have 47 reversions in my edit history (18 are current, an additional 29 earlier in my edit history), some more AIV reports, apart from 52 pending changes reviews. These 47 reverts, AIV reports and 52 pending changes reviews may provide you and any other reviewing editor with evidence of my understanding of vandalism and, more importantly, what is not vandalism. The reason I have given UAA reports is again to show that there is understanding of what is a vandal username/contribution and what is not. Quoting the rollback guideline here, Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights, "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted." If my 47 reverts, AIV reports and 52 pending changes reviews are able to provide the reviewing editor with a demonstrated ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues and unconstructive vandalism, and if I am granted the rollback permissions, I would be able to use tools like Huggle, which also is a faster way rather than going repeatedly through the recent changes log. If my contributions are not yet enough to provide evidence of such a demonstrated ability, and I am not granted rollback rights, I am quite okay with it. The intent is to only volunteer time to keep Wikipedia better in a faster manner. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your link confirms what I said, "three reversions in the past two months", so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. For reasons I hope are obvious I'm not going to be the admin to act on this request one way or the other, but I imagine whoever does act on it is unlikely to be impressed by your inventing a nonexistent criterion for the granting of rollback and editwarring to keep it in the instructions while your current request is live. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Iridescent, the criterion was created by me in March 2016, not right now as you mistakenly write. On your point about edit warring, as per policy, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." I don't think you've noted that my revert to the said page post our discussions was to your version, not mine. This is how Wikipedia discussions function, in my experience that is much lesser to yours. We discuss, we reach a consensus, and we congenially discuss. The feel I get from your words is that you feel slighted at my having reverted your initial revert and having responded to you on the said guideline's talk page. If this is the case, I am sorry for that - I did not intend that. As an administrator, you should be more welcoming to relatively new editors like me, both with your words and your actions, and you should be guiding relatively new editors rather than confronting them the way you are. On the issue of merit, I don't know which link you are looking at. When an editor applies for rollback, you should see the reverts she has attempted since the last rollback request was rejected. Your number of 3 reverts does not match with my number of close to 50; so I think you are clicking on the wrong link. Lastly, you and I are both volunteers on this project. The rollback tool will only assist enthusiastic editors like me to help the project be kept clean of vandalism by the usage of tools like Huggle. There is no point to be won or lost in my getting the Rollback or not. It's just a collaborative effort which we all enjoy. I would be pleased to contribute to the project whichever way any administrator decides and in collaborating with you closely in the future too. Thanks, and again, sorry if my words did hurt you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your link confirms what I said, "three reversions in the past two months", so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. For reasons I hope are obvious I'm not going to be the admin to act on this request one way or the other, but I imagine whoever does act on it is unlikely to be impressed by your inventing a nonexistent criterion for the granting of rollback and editwarring to keep it in the instructions while your current request is live. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Iridescent, hi. I have 47 reversions in my edit history (18 are current, an additional 29 earlier in my edit history), some more AIV reports, apart from 52 pending changes reviews. These 47 reverts, AIV reports and 52 pending changes reviews may provide you and any other reviewing editor with evidence of my understanding of vandalism and, more importantly, what is not vandalism. The reason I have given UAA reports is again to show that there is understanding of what is a vandal username/contribution and what is not. Quoting the rollback guideline here, Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights, "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted." If my 47 reverts, AIV reports and 52 pending changes reviews are able to provide the reviewing editor with a demonstrated ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues and unconstructive vandalism, and if I am granted the rollback permissions, I would be able to use tools like Huggle, which also is a faster way rather than going repeatedly through the recent changes log. If my contributions are not yet enough to provide evidence of such a demonstrated ability, and I am not granted rollback rights, I am quite okay with it. The intent is to only volunteer time to keep Wikipedia better in a faster manner. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at your contribution history you have made a grand total of three revisions in the last two months, all of which were made this morning. Why do you feel rollback permissions would be of any use to you, since you don't appear to do anything that would involve them? I'm not sure why you're raising UAA here, which has nothing to do with rollback. ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done Rollback is about trust. I don't trust people who try to amend the administrator instructions to try to make it easier to get the permission. I don't trust people who take such a condescending, scolding tone to respected administrators who are trying to help them. Give us six months of solid – and I mean solid, persistent, quality countervandalism work – and I'll reconsider. Don't argue with me or Iridescent or any of the other admins who patrol here, and don't put another screed below my close about how administrators should and shouldn't behave. Just do the work. Katietalk 18:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie, I can understand your declining my rollback request. I can also understand the six months of counter vandalism work you are suggesting. My view about one admin's behaviour is not intended to belittle the administrator ranks; it is to put across my point of view of how I actually feel about the responses I received from Iridescent above; I do stand by all my responses above. To quote Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct. "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I believe in the import of this significant policy. About your usage of the term, "Just do the work", I would repeat the statements that I told to Iridescent. We are here to volunteer our time for the benefit of the project. It's not something that can be considered work where one supersedes another or orders another to just do the work. It's a pleasure to be able to contribute to Wikipedia, collaborate with other editors and I would surely continue to contribute likewise to the project in the succeeding months, and I am sure you would too in the best manner possible in the coming months, motivating newbies to contribute and encouraging editors with lesser experience than you to be enthusiastic about the project. Thanks and hope to see you around the project. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Katie hasn't ordered you to do anything. She's said that if you want rollback, here's how to get it. It's up to you whether you follow this steps. ~ RobTalk 19:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's true. I may have misread the words. Will do and contact her after six months if I've been able to churn up the counter vandalism work expected. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Katie hasn't ordered you to do anything. She's said that if you want rollback, here's how to get it. It's up to you whether you follow this steps. ~ RobTalk 19:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie, I can understand your declining my rollback request. I can also understand the six months of counter vandalism work you are suggesting. My view about one admin's behaviour is not intended to belittle the administrator ranks; it is to put across my point of view of how I actually feel about the responses I received from Iridescent above; I do stand by all my responses above. To quote Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct. "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I believe in the import of this significant policy. About your usage of the term, "Just do the work", I would repeat the statements that I told to Iridescent. We are here to volunteer our time for the benefit of the project. It's not something that can be considered work where one supersedes another or orders another to just do the work. It's a pleasure to be able to contribute to Wikipedia, collaborate with other editors and I would surely continue to contribute likewise to the project in the succeeding months, and I am sure you would too in the best manner possible in the coming months, motivating newbies to contribute and encouraging editors with lesser experience than you to be enthusiastic about the project. Thanks and hope to see you around the project. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
User:MorbidEntree
- MorbidEntree (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 look out for vandalism and think that I have done a good job so far in fighting against it. I think that access to the rollback feature would help me in my efforts. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
User:BerendWorst
- BerendWorst (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)
- the reason for this request is that I want to help clean up vandalism because mostly anonymous users has many operations do succession is difficult for me to turn back the vandalism at once, I will not abuse these extra powers or use it for little rule removals , and i am familiar with this role in the Dutch edition , BerendWorst (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done I don't doubt that you're familiar with the Dutch Wikipedia, but I'm not and they may do things differently there. Regardless, I'm declining because there's a bit of a language barrier here and because I don't feel you have a sufficient history of reporting vandalism yet. You can use Twinkle to revert successive edits; just enable it in your preferences and configure it per the instructions. In a couple of months, if you're still interested in rollback and have solid CV work, we'll reconsider. :-) Katietalk 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)