Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/May 2008

May 1

Gohan71

Gohan71 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I wanted to rollback vandalism on the Jeff Corwin page and the vandal had done several edits, so I could not easily undo his changes and had to manually put the original text back. To make this easier in the future I would like to be granted rollback permission.

Not done I can't see this tool being used often, since your edits are sporadic over a many number of months. Rudget (Help?) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what, what difference does that make? How do I then make it easier to rollback? Can I just Undo each individual edit? That will create unnecessary entries in the history.

Leaving open for other admins attention. If we can't see particular experience with the undo button, then how do we know that it can be used appropriately? Rudget (Help?) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the primary decision;

Not done. You simply do not have enough activity by which I personally feel able to judge your request by. Please do re-request in a month or two, provided you've made some edits and got a feel for the general principles and technologies of reverting. Incidentally, to pick up on your comment, "That will create unnecessary entries in the history": undo creates just as many entries as rollback–the latter is simply a quicker way of manoeuvring through the same process as the former. I fear this shows a little bit of a misunderstanding over the rollback tool; please ensure you have fully read Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Regards, Anthøny 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthøny, it seems that you don't seem to understand the difference between undo and reverting yourself. If the vandal made more than one edit to the article in a row, reverting will revert to the latest version made by a user other than the vandal, and there will one entry in the history "Reverted edits by User A (talk) to last version by User B", whereas without the revert permission I would have to undo all of the vandal's edits from last to first, creating a new version every time. I you prefer I do that, fine. Please stop wasting the time of people that just want to help, by making the conditions for you to give rollback permission more clear.

Lerdthenerd

Lerdthenerd (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I want to be able to deal with vandalism faster Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've had rollback removed once before for edit warring. Your vandalism work seems to be fairly good, however I want to be absolutely sure you understand what rollback is intended for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to misuse it again, you have my word.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest discussing things with the admin who removed your rollback. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Per the above. Please discuss with User:Majorly. Pedro : Chat 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer interested in discussing rollback rights. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend, in that case, that User:Lerdthenerd wait for a while before re-application (1 month as a suggestion but not binding) and demostrate accurate use of the undo feature. Pedro : Chat 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. One month sounds appropriate, and for archiving purposes I will mark this as

Not done. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lykantrop

Lykantrop (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

It makes anti-vandalism easier LYKANTROP 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There's a message on your userpage warning you for what your rollback was last removed for. Wait longer before requesting again, please. Malinaccier (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll do that. Thanks. LYKANTROP 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done For bot to archive Pedro : Chat 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why was my request denied?-- LYKANTROP 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danielaustinhall12

Danielaustinhall12 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Rollback will make it easier for me to deal with vandalism.Dan the Man (Talk to me.) 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Account was made a little over a month ago, and has under 500 edits. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done permanent link to requesters talk page. Too many concerns and very few edits. I'm sorry - please free to re-apply in the future. Pedro : Chat 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Bignole

Bignole (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I'm not sure if it is in the rules that other people can't nominate other editors for rollback, but if that is the case, I couldn't find it anywheres. This user has a good history of using the undo tool to revert vandalism and I wanted to nominate this user for the rollback feature because I feel as though he will use it to revert vandalism and not misuse it. Thank you for your time. Razor flame 02:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Users should request rollback for themselves. Nakon 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

bbriggs1

Bbriggs1 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Rollback rights would make a useful tool to fight vandalism.--Benjamin Briggs (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, not enough experience. Nakon 00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher140691

Christopher140691 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Because the admin that reverted it is not giving a very fare example. took it away for 2 wrong rollbacks. Not a very nice admin at all. Has had several complaints about him.

I'm afraid I have to agree with him, this wasn't nice at all. Such reverts damage Wikipedia. If you don't explain your actions well, people will eventually get pissed off at you, that's why automatic rollback should be used only to revert simple vandalism. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously dont see why that was wrong if you start your request accusing the admin, not taking responsibility for your actions. I reccomend declining this request. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Has used rollback before for innapropriate edits and does not seem to understand why it was wrong. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Sceptre

Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Yeah, I know, "abuse" and yada-yada, but the removal of it was pure obstructionism - if I make 11,000 edits in a month, 95% of which are vandal reverts/warnings, it shows a need far greater than minor instances of abuse. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, I like you and all - but do you really expect an admin to give you this back when the original removal of your rollback was supported by multiple people just a couple of days ago? I'd probably suggest going to WP:AN, offer some appologies and say you won't misue it again. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a steward offered to give it me back? Yes. Besides, any perceived abuse is done on a daily basis by admins. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me, I think. I offered to restore Sceptre's rollback if he would confine use of it to reversion of clear vandalism. He and I have had an interesting and pleasant discussion about how in general on en:wp the guidelines for when rollback should be used or not are very vague, and I find myself in agreement. I personally think that rollback should only EVER be used for clear vandalism reverts and the like, and that in most cases, the act of rolling something back should have quite a bit more said in the edit summary... I recognise that is not the currently accepted standard for its use but I nevertheless requested adherence to that by Sceptre as a condition of turning it back on. I think in the end he was not comfortable with that. I have, as I said before, a great deal of respect for Sceptre, but I think he and I are not in fundamental agreement about some of his usages. It could well be that he also talked to another steward. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I disagree. Perhaps you have not recently viewed the associated thread on the talk page of this page and the through links from it? Allthough poorly attended no-one seems to have challenged it and the changes to WP:RBK. Pedro : Chat 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Ya, ya, it's archived. so sue me! :) Pedro, sorry for any confusion I may have caused there. Like Sam Korn, I don't always read every policy page. :) That the policy in this area is actually more in line with what I believe is appropriate than I thought is a pleasant surprise, thanks for the elaboration. I don't think it substantially changes anything about this case, Sceptre does not share the same view of appropriate use that some of the rest of us do and until he does, I personally would not be willing to turn rollback back on. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly dont see a problem with your actions when several other do. Your attitude does not appear that you have any inention to use it any differently in the future. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done it was just removed. The new request seems to indicate that abuse of the tool is okay if you use it enough for vandal fighting. No. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what rollback is for, vandal fighting? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it is for vandal fighting, not minor instances of abuse. One does not give allowance for the other. If someone else wants to give it to you I won't say boo, but I won't(not today at least). _(1 == 2)^Until 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still, removing it from a prolific vandal-fighter for a minor (and totally understandable) instance of abuse is obstructionism. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. You were clearly misusing it, and now you whine that it was taken away? Being a self-described prolific vandal fighter doesn't mean you get to use rollback however you want. You seem to have mistaken rollback for some award given for past service, rather than a tool to be used constructively. Friday (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the AN post? Don't tell me you've never rollbacked trolling. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Sceptre, you should know better. - auburnpilot talk 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not either. Some admins do abuse the tool, and you are welcome to correct them. But that does not mean it is okay to do. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good that Sceptre would (continue) to do with rollback far outweighs the bad that might occur. If he messes up again, remove it again. Rights granted are not rights granted forever. He's already stated he won't mis-use it. Just help the encyclopedia by giving our vandal fighters the tools they need. This isn't supposed to be a big deal. It's not adminship. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what is the point in adding rollback if we know it could be potentially misused? Rudget (Help?) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because The good that Sceptre would (continue) to do with rollback far outweighs the bad that might occur. If he messes up again, remove it again. Rights granted are not rights granted forever. He's already stated he won't mis-use it. Just help the encyclopedia by giving our vandal fighters the tools they need. This isn't supposed to be a big deal. It's not adminship. :-) Mahalo. Hope this clears things up. :-) Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that Sceptre's definition of "mis-use" and everyone else's definition of "mis-use" appears to differ somewhat. -- Naerii 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to giving Sceptre back the tool, but I'd rather not just unilaterally do it, and then face a screaming fest from people. So, can I get a hand-raise from anyone who intends to scream at me if I were to do that? Keeping in mind that if Sceptre screws up, you can always just remove it from him again?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support giving it back. Enough already. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the AN thread (where the removal was supported) was not that long ago, I don't think it's time just yet. Stick with the regular buttons for a while. No screaming, R. Baley (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback was always supposed to be easy come, easy go. We need to keep a fairly bright line around accepted usage and in this particular case it went beyond it. If we start making exceptions then we're just going to have scope creep and different standards for different users...RxS (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy come, easy go....then why not "easy come"? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, the easy come part has happened already. It's not easy come easy go easy come easy go easy come easy go...RxS (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? He admitted his mistake, he used the tool successfully for 1000s of edits. He's a longstanding member of Wikipedia. Why not easy come easy go easy come easy go easy come easy go? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a waste of time. And a minor (and totally understandable) instance of abuse is obstructionism doesn't much sound like admitting a mistake. Pissing contests like this is why people were against this in the beginning. RxS (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am against you granting it, given the comments so far here. Maybe in a few weeks, a more appologetic attitude and willingness to admit the mistakes he can have it back - now is just too soon and I don't think Sceptre respects his wrong doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think that sounds just a teensy bit like punishment at all? -- Naerii 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Until he realises that what he did was wrong and admits that, he shouldn't have the tool back. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he say, just above, that he knows it "was a mistake"? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After being forced to say it. It's clear from previous statements in this thread that he doesn't realise his mistake. Until he does realise it, and states it in a more believable fashion, I don't think he should have it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre doesn't strike me as someone that is "forced to say" anything, like crying Uncle. He admitted his mistake. We should all move on. I for one, believe him when he says he made a mistake. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this was anyone else, they wouldn't get it back for a long time - because this is Sceptre should make no difference. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Naerii makes a good point - removing and/or declining my request for rollback is more punitive than preventative, and having rollback doesn't make a difference to me removing stuff at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support giving it him back, if he's going to remove things inappropriately he's going to do it with or without rollback. It'd be nice if discussions like the one on AN focused on the fact that people have removed things inappropriately, not that they used rollback to do it. -- Naerii 21:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support him getting rollback back... but not after just two days after its removal. Not sure what the appropriate span of time should be, but two days just seems ridiculously short. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goodness me. Can we at least take this to a sub page or WP:AN. Imagine a relative newbie turning up asking for the rights and seeing this!! They'd be gone in a moment. Whatever the merits or otherwise of not granting this right, it's totally clear that this discussion should be moved to anywhere but a page that our newer editors are often directed to. Pedro : Chat 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Sceptre's rollback was removed less than 48 hours ago, due to abuse. Other users who have had it removed were told "too soon" well over a week later. I cannot support rollback being returned to Sceptre until he is able to demonstrate that he understands the acceptable and unacceptable use of rollback. Thus far, he has not. - auburnpilot talk 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easier to understand if it wasn't so vague. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Alucard 16

Alucard 16 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I've been reverting vandalism using Twinkle for a while, and I'd like to have the the rollback feature to speed up and ease the process. I have read both Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and completely understand when and when not to use the rollback feature. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 06:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by this revert of yours. It reverted something that wasn't simple vandalism. Comments? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles weren't linked properly or didn't exists resulting in red links. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the edit in good faith normally the article is a target of vandalism. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Looking through your contributions, I can see a number of vandalism reverts that are questionable, to say the least; most are in the same vein as the link from Max Sem. Overall, I am not confident that you know what you're doing with vandalism reversion at the present moment. I'd encourage you to keep up the work with Twinkle, and continue reading up on the information pages on rollback, such as Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Bear in mind that rollback is not to be used for good faith edits, but only for obvious vandalism; for anything other than clear disruption, revert using "undo" and include an informative edit summary. Lastly, please do re-request rollback in a month or two, when you've turned a new leaf on competence in this field, and I would be happy to consider granting you access to the feature. Anthøny 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kegzz

Kegzz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Because a page has been vandalised and I contribute to it constantly and it has too many edits for me to undo. Page is Britain's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 Kegzz (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You have very little experience here (en.wikipedia) and close to no experience outside of the article listed above. I see no vandalism reverts, and after reviewing your contribs located the undo's you referred to as vandalism above to only find undo's like this which is clearly not vandalism. Maybe try a tool like WP:TW that can perform multiple reverts but allows you to use an edit summary. Tiptoety ^talk 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing Tiptoety's assessment here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regretfully, endorse this

Not done conclusion. Please do get some experience with, for example, Twinkle, and then consider re-requesting. Anthøny 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

krushdiva

Krushdiva (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

when i've come across vandelism recently, i've noticed a pattern of 2+ edits done by that user and i think this would make it faster and easier undoing those edits Krushdiva (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I'm concerned by the undos for 14 May. This was not vandalism by any means, and I feel that you would've used the tool to revert those edits. It's not a tool to make reverting faster, it's a tool to make reverting vandalism faster. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point of view from just looking at that day only, but honestly I was not refering to those edits (May14th). Those edits were for a category revision from another user - - you can look @ my user page for that discussion. For rollback purposes, I understand they are for vandelism and my comment about "2+ edits" was refering to vandelism I have corrected in the past and you can look at other vandelism edits that I have made where I cut & paste the revisions. Thanks!Krushdiva (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I am not trying to be difficult but since I have not heard back, I just wanted to confirm that I got denied for rollback privilages b/c you think that I would have used the tool for edits that I've done in the past? I just wanted to make clear that I try really hard to make sure that I do everything by the rules on here and I haven't broken any...to my knowledge. Before I requested for rollback, I visited all the pages that it directed me to and I read over all the information. And I clearly understood that it was for vandelism purposes...not to correct any old edit I wanted. And I just think it is kind of crummy to accuse someone of something that none of my previous edits reflect. It also sends the message that if someone spends hours on something trying to improve articles that has nothing to do with rollbacks, but instead of something that I discovered that wasn't in line with wikipedia policy, that action is counted against them.Krushdiva (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

Redl@nds597198

Redl@nds597198 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I revert bits and pieces of vandalism from time to time and something I find easier to use than Twinkle would be helpful ;) —97198 talk 09:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to grant this one, but because of the @ sign in your username I'm having trouble with Special:Userrights thinking this is a request on another wiki (e.g. Alex.muller@enwiki). To somebody else: does this need to be requested at meta? –Alex.Muller 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the talk page archive here, it seems we can't grant requests to users with an @ in their name. You might consider WP:CHU for a change of username, which will move all your contributions over to the new name. Regrettably

Not done at this time –Alex.Muller 09:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Mpetrites

Mpetrites (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Removal of substantial vandalism on religiously oriented or otherwise controversial pages Alex Trathedral (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Kepper here, get some experience doing recent change patrol, revert some clear cases of vandalism and come back when you have a clear understanding of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Tiptoety ^talk 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MillionaireMan

MillionaireMan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

To rollback vandalism and also to help save time when reverting vandalism MillionaireMan (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Sorry, you need a bit more time here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with this

Not done decision. Anthøny 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Sanawon

Sanawon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I'd like to contribute in a small way to the Wiki, and I think reverting vandalism with Rollback is a good way to do that. Thank you for considering me! sanawon 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done at this time. Whilst we strongly appreciate your desire, you have just 15 edits. Please feel free to apply again after maybe a couple of weeks contributing, and using (as an example) the undo tool to revert vandalism. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

R3ap3R.inc

R3ap3R.inc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I am unable to use Twinkle due to Norton 360, and would enjoy the privilege of this useful tool R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I do not see enough evidence of correct vandalism reverts. Some, like this one are on the edge. Also with only a little over 130 edits I am not quite sure you are ready. Read over WP:VANDALISM and use to undo button to revert clear cases of vandalism, then come back when you have 500 edits or so. Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one in particular which is "on the edge" is unclear to me. I reverted a clear case of vandalism; to wit, the person added about Dave Matthews: "Therafter [SIC], Matthews revealed that he had joined the San Francisco regional chapter of the Church of Satan, where he met his future wife, Janet Reno..." and I undid that person's revision. Nonetheless, I will check again after a little more experience, thanks. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiros10

Shapiros10 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I revert vandalism, and this tool will be extremely helpful. Shapiros10 Came Back! 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Was blocked today as part of ANI. Also I see only one revert. I'm not comfortable about granting rollback at this time. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

StewieGriffin!

StewieGriffin! (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I currently stop vandalism at newpages and try at recent changes. Rollback would really help me. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one needs several eyes on it. History of recent sockpuppeting/block abuse. I'm not deciding it alone (I'm not saying "no", I'm just not saying "yes" either) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sockpuppetry was to be benificial to the encyclopedia, but I didn't use it for vandalism, so that can't be a reason? StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definately an established user. I may not be ready for adminship, but I can do rollback. StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined it on his talk page before this request was made. I personally think it's too early to grant extra rights to a recently blocked user, but if others disagree then I don't mind either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my block has nothing to do with rollback. That was adminship. StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to declining this one, but for reasons unrelated to sockpuppetry. While this revert was a good one, other reverts such as this and this concern me, especially since I found very few reverts in their recent edits. I'd like to see more evidence of correct vandal-fighting first before I feel comfortable with the person having rollback rights. Acalamari 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do do a lot at Special:NewPages, and with the help of the rollback feature, i can revert vandalism in recent changes etc. StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest, I don't know why I did that 3rd one! But I wouldn't slip up with this feature. StewieGriffin! Previously SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please} 18:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Ok, calling this before it gets to out of control. Sorry, SF08, its just too soon, with too many issues. Most concerning are the diffs from Acalamari. Please reapply in a couple of months of good solid contributions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

ILoveFran

ILoveFran (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

To help reduce the amount of vandalism without using the undo feature it will take less time as I dont have the time to manually do it. ILoveFran (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - I think you need to take a little while and read over WP:VANDALISM as you seem to be currently reverting some questionable cases of "vandalism" such as [1] and [2]. I recommend that you go a little slower and gain a little more experience before re-requesting the tool. Tiptoety ^talk 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not give this editor rollback privileges as s/he has been misusing Twinkle privileges and engaging in disruptive editing, per the editor's Talk page and editing history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]