Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2009/March/Notdone

User:NotGiven

NotGiven (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

To assist with vandal-reverting. I have used it previously. NotGiven 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, but where did you use it previously? Razor flame 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded: you haven't even got 50 contributions yet - I think our guidelines say 100 edits min. Gob lin 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I'd like to see time editing and getting experience with reversion of vandalism here first. fr33kman ^talk 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100+ edits? Ah ok. I will try again later. I'd rather not give out that info Razor if you don't mind. :) NotGiven 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you afraid that you might be found to be a sockpuppet of someone? Considering that you speak English, the only other Wikipedia that would give rollback to you would be the English Wikipedia.....Razor flame 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria above doesn't say 100+, it just says active btw. NotGiven 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You assume my only language is English? Perhaps I can speak more than one? And its quite the witchhunt isn't it? I don't want to say who I previously am, and you assume its a bad thing. Socks aren't bad until they cause vandalism or double-voting etc... WP:BITE Razor... NotGiven 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

multiple e/c If you are trusted with the tool on another wiki then I believe we fast track people here. But that's up to you. For it to be granted here you will need a minimum of 100 edits I believe, some of which should be vandal fighting. Regards, Gob lin 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Flame: AGF ;). It could have been at a non-WMF wiki remember. Gob lin 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@NotGiven: Actually, socks are bad at any stage if they are undeclared. Gob lin 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that you are a sockpuppet, I was merely wondering why you are afraid of telling us where you have rollback/had rollback previously. In fact, it will actually help you pass this RfRB if you do tell us this information. Razor flame 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@BG7: I know that that could be a possibility. Razor flame 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@NotGiven; The criteria state active and that experience reverting vandalism needs to have occured. I can not currently see that in your edits.Please ask again later, Cheers :) fr33kman ^talk 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyone else; decisions been mae, let's close this now :) fr33kman ^talk 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Razor: I won't reveal my other identity at this time. I will however declare this: I am in good standing in all Wikipedia's; I have never been warned for any actions and have never been blocked. I have experience as an administrator and bureaucrat on Wikipedia. I would however suggest you work on being welcoming to newbies. NotGiven 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you kinda caught me in a bad mood! Sorry for that! Hope we can work together some time in the future! Cheers, Razor flame 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Razorflame

Razorflame (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

I've had time to think over my edit warring with TOM, and we have resolved the conflict and will never edit war again. Please note that this is just requesting the priviledge to rollback again, not the actual flag. Thanks! Razor flame 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you are going to need to leave it for a bit. I also think you should ask Kennedy fr33kman ^talk 02:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, do you mean a couple of days, a week, a month?? And thanks for the help, Razor flame 02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week and then see where we are then (I do, however, free up any other admin to grant before, but it should be on consultation with Kennedy). If you can convince Kennedy that you're cool headed now, then it's his call. It'd probably be less time but for the use (however mistaken it was) of global rollback [very happy you now have your monobook.css fixed up to stop display of rollback links] fr33kman ^talk 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a day Razor? No I think you need to wait a bit longer on this one mate. Kennedy ^(talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've realized that and I know that I should have used the undo button for that revert and I am very sorry to both TOM and myself and I am very mad at myself for doing this and I wish that I could turn back time to prevent this from happening. I really wish that now that the discussion is over on Wikipedia:Simple Talk that we can go back to how things were before this whole ugly thing. Please consider this. Thanks, Razor flame 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done