Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2016/July/Notdone

User:MBlaze Lightning

MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

I have been reverting vandalism using Twinkle for a little while now and I believe that having rollback rights would help me fight vandal edits efficiently. Counter vandalism has always been an interest for me. :) — MBlaze Lightning 14:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chenzw or @Auntof6 can you please look at the above request and decide whether to endorse or decline. Thanks. — MBlaze Lightning 17:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given my rather recent involvement in processing your unblock, I would rather defer this to someone else for the time being. Chenzw Talk 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Too few edits in too short of a time to convince me to grant rollback. I think an additional month of editing time should be enough to justify giving it. Only (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Auntof6, Chenzw, and Only: would you reconsider my above request? I spend most of my time here reverting vandalism and I believe having rollback rights would help me fight vandal edits efficiently. I solemnly swear that I will never abuse "rollback", I will use it just for reverting blatant vandalism. Thank you for reconsidering, and have a nice day. — MBlaze Lightning 04:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Let me start off by saying I have some major reservations on this request. First off, the Socks from En.wiki has me concerned, but none of those have showed themselves here. Also the edit summary here [1] while I understand the frustration when you edit and forget to log in or get logged out, that edit summary is questionable. And the allegations of POV, have me concerned, but as of right now that is about the only aspect, I have not looked into. I also agree with Only that the first request was a little too soon and he had requested you wait about a month. It is only about two and a half weeks since your were asked to wait a month. While everything I have seen causes me reason to not want too grant the right, your anti-vandal work looks good here since those issues. Give it the rest of the month time that was requested, and I will then reconsider your request provided your work stays good and I will assume good faith on the issues I have listed. -- Enfcer (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Music1201

Music1201 (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

After getting my rollback revoked after using it countless times correctly. Being revoked for no logical reason whatsoever (which was clearly against policy), I am re-requesting by proving some of the edits I have made reverting vandalism/unconstructive edits. Here they are: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I thought it would be worth mentioning that I am trusted with rollback on English Wikipedia and Wikidata. Thanks for your "re" consideration. — Music1201 ^talk 04:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not approve or deny here, but I wanted to point out that the "policy" you refer to is ambiguously worded, and is actually a guideline, not a policy. Therefore, the revocation of your rights was not "clearly against policy". I am sorry, however, that your case wasn't handled as smoothly we usually manage. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There have been zero mainspace edits since your rollback right was removed. Local rollback is given to editors who have a consistent need to use rollback-functionality in the course of their anti-vandalism work on this wiki. If your usual anti-vandalism workflow involves visiting this small wiki only occasionally, you might want to consider requesting for global rollback instead. Chenzw Talk 10:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't actually disagree with Chenzw in principle, and this highlights the need for us to clarify the guideline. However, I do think that once given, the rollback right should not be revoked as long as the user has been using it per policy. And I see no evidence that Music1201 has used it against policy. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: This is not a general vote. Chenzw's "oppose" was to say that he, who is an administrator, wanted to comment but not approve or deny. Non-admin comments are not needed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Fine. It's not a vote. I removed "support". I'm entitled to my opinion, however. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to it, but it has no bearing on this kind of administrative action. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: I strongly suggest you reread WP:Administrators. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this to your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting quite out of hand. This is a highly unnecessary dispute. It is not typically acceptable for an administrator to revoke rollback rights given by another user, especially when the user has correctly used it many times, never misused it and is trusted with rollback on other WMF sites. I have a clear need for rollback rights, and also, rollback is not a big deal. If I were to incorrectly used it, the edit could be reverted and the rights could be immediately revoked (that is why rollback is no big deal), although considering I had rollback rights for over a month on this wiki without ever coming near misuse, I don't think that's a situation we have to worry about. So basically, I am not understanding the opposition of being granted this right. Since Simple English is much smaller than some other wikis, administrators can not always attend to consecutive unconstructive edits, and they sit here waiting for the public to see them for up to hours at a time. So please, allow me to help by being granted this "such advanced" permission. Thank you for considering my request. — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Auntof6: @StevenJ81:, @Chenzw:.

(note: this ping didn't show up in my notifications–likely that pinging more than X users in one edit will suppress notifications, to prevent abuse)

I am closing this request as denied. Like I mentioned earlier, there have been zero mainspace edits since your rollback rights were removed. This wiki experiences vandalism daily, so I don't see how you have a clear, consistent need for rollback, when you have barely edited the wiki during this period, let alone undoing vandalism. It looks very much like hat collecting to me. In hindsight, I should not have granted you rollback in the first place, and I agree with Djsasso's later removal. If you believe Dj to be misusing sysop powers (in revoking your right), or me to be lacking proper judgment (with initially granting you the right, then endorsing the removal later) you can take us up to WP:RFA. Chenzw Talk 16:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chenzw: Nope, you can ping as many users as up to 50 in one edit. The reason you didn't get a notification is because pings only work if you sign your post after them, and Music signed his before. Omni Flames (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]