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

User:Trunzep

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

Hey! I will be of great help to revert obvious vandalism especially in The Recent Changes and New Pages. I would be really happy and privilaged if you gave me the feature. Thank you Purple Lamborghini¹⁷³⁸ 09:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to decline giving the right at this point of time, and suggest you try again some time after early-December. There were a few reverts which I don't consider to be reverting vandalism: Special:Diff/5527128, Special:Diff/5529496. Low quality or misinformed edits should not be considered as vandalism. Please be more careful and remember to assume good faith, that is, assume first that other editors (registered or anonymous) are here to help improve the encyclopedia. Chenzw Talk 17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apipo1907

Apipo1907 (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

Hi ! can you give me rollbacker rights because I need tools for revert quickly vandalism, work than I do often on recents changes. Tools are for me important because they reduise time for undo a bad edit one after one. With 700 edits here, I am already patrol and rollbacker on Vikidia you can see my contributions and patrol on French Wikipedia. Thanks Apipo1907 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spot checked your anti-vandalism work, and it looked OK. The concern I have is that many of your quick deletion requests have specified that the pages were vandalism, when they really weren't (they were more along the lines of test pages). It might just be that you aren't very familiar with all the QD options, or maybe it's that your English just needs improving so that you can evaluate things better, but I'm concerned that you might see something similar in a change and roll it back as vandalism. The rollback function is to be used only for real vandalism, and I'm not sure you can reliably recognize it. As for your experience on Vikidia, to me that isn't relevant here.

I'm on the fence here, so I'm going to leave it to the other admins. I just wanted to voice the one concern. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 you said in my first application that QD had nothing to do with the rollback . Remember, we are here in a bid Rollbacker and not of sysop, the Rollbacker tools only allow revoke, as quickly as possible vandalism. In this they are to be given to those involved in the maintenance of the wiki Apipo1907 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. You miss the point she was making. She is saying if you are saying stuff is vandalism when it isn't, it goes to show you don't know what vandalism is, and thus should not have roll back tools because you might rollback something as vandalism that is not vandalism. I have to concur that she and the others who have denied before are correct. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) I said that about the log. The log doesn't show the qd reason you gave, or whether the admin agreed with that reason. My comment is based on what I've seen when processing qd requests. I'm not saying that the pages you nominated needed to be kept. I'm saying that I think we need to be careful and accurate when we call something vandalism because that can affect how the editor who wrote a page is perceived. I do think you can learn to identify vandalism properly, though. When a page you nominated gets deleted, do you check to see if the admin used the reason you gave? When I delete a page that you qd'd as vandalism, if I change the reason I will try to remember to explain why I changed it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]