I have concerns about your ability to identify vandalism. These two, [1][2], were reverted as vandalism but they appear to be valid {{unreferenced}} tags. This edit seems to be a valid attempt to add content to the article. This is a valid edit too (it's true). This one looks like a valid attempt to improve it, though it probably does not belong in the article. All in all, I'm not comfortable with granting rollback, but I'll allow someone else to review this. Additionally, I'm concerned that you never warn after you revert vandalism. This should be done when you revert. Either way (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. I think that you are one of the most improved editors on this site and are making a lot of progress in a lot of areas, however, I still don't think you are ready yet for Rollback. As Either Way said, you still have some progress to make in properly identifying vandalism, and I also think that you could make some progress in assuming good faith, as evidenced by the exchange that occurred here [3], followed by your later statement that you "thought [he] was a vandal" [4]. Having said that, you are one of our most active RC patrollers, and I would definitely be willing to revisit this opinion in a couple of weeks. Kansan (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per Either way and Kansan. Please take a read of what people have said and then come back, thanks for your contributions thus far! Goblin18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Not done per Either way and Kansan. Please take a read of what people have said and then come back, thanks for your contributions thus far! Goblin 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!