I would like to make reverting vandalism quicker and easier. Twinkle is sometimes slow and non-moblie, and huggle sometimes crashes for me. I had rollback on enwiki on another account. If you have any questions about my time enWiki , ask me and check out these links. Thanks rollingbarrels (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator observation) Based on a random sampling of your undos, you seems to lack understanding what is vandalism and what isn't. This, this and this are clearly not vandalism. They are not useful edits, but for TW there are 3 options, you can have chosen to just revert with edit summary "was ok". In addition, the opening of this RFD where the creator had only just created the article shows too eagerness to press buttons which your rationale of reverting vandalism quicker worry me of unnecessary BITE. I don't care whatsoever happened on enwp but these are enough concerns that you need more time and experience to use rollback here. Regards, --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage:The RfD, if you'd look in the edit summary, was "Created on behalf of Aeroplane 82", as the user had only tagged the page without making a discussion. The edits you provided are vandalism, in fact, while the 3rd one is a bit of a bite, its still a bad change, so I used a lv. 1 warning (Neutral Faith) instead of lv. 2 (bad faith). rollingbarrels (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, they are called test edits, not strictly vandalism. Lv 1 btw is assume good faith, level 2 is neutral, level 3 is then bad faith and etc. For every edit you made, they are yours and you should take ownership of it. For things such as Twinkle and Huggle, although they are semi automated, you are responsible for it. Likewise, if you help someone create RFD, you should at least see is the deletion reason they provided valid and likewise. Regards, --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I don't think the above 3 diffs are an issue (and I would not fault a rollbacker who decided to use rollback for those diffs), and the RfD is more of a policy understanding issue (WP:BEFORE) which in my view should not be a veto factor. However, I would like to see a longer period of editing before I grant the right. Please apply again in a couple of weeks. ChenzwTalk10:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been very active in anti-vandalism for a period of about seven weeks combined between this Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia, and on this Wikipedia I have 474 edits at the time of writing. I feel that I am ready for rollback rights, and that receiving them would allow me to work better and more efficiently in anti-vandalism. Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 19:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Vermont Your very recent history of socking, vandalism, and hate speech on enwiki precludes this request. The situation enwiki would have to be resolved before I'd reconsider. Operator873talkconnect20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I don't think the above 3 diffs are an issue (and I would not fault a rollbacker who decided to use rollback for those diffs), and the RfD is more of a policy understanding issue (WP:BEFORE) which in my view should not be a veto factor. However, I would like to see a longer period of editing before I grant the right. Please apply again in a couple of weeks. Chenzw Talk 10:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)