Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmandaNP (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 24 August 2018 (→‎User:L293D: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rollback

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
Please review Wikipedia:Rollback before making a request. Applicants with fewer than 200 mainspace edits are unlikely to be granted this right. More importantly, applicants must have a measurable track record of counter-vandalism and no recent history of edit warring. The counter-vandalism training program is available if you wish to gain experience in handling vandalism.

User:Pablothepenguin

After a recent bout of anti vandalism work today, I feel that I have matured to the extent that rollback rights can be trusted to me. I may not have been very busy on here recently, but when I do come across vandalism that I need to revert, I can easily correct it in no time at all. Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No recent or established history of fighting vandalism. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t I just say, that I undid some vandalism yesterday. Also, I did a lot of anti-vandalism work back in 2014, when my account was relatively new. You check my contributions log to see for yourself. Pablothepenguin (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you undid a few edits on an article. On the policy page it says "demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism". Policies have changed a lot since 2014, especially WP:NEWBLPBAN. I'd be happy to re-review after you did a fair amount of recent vandalism work. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:September 1988

I sometimes revert edits on English Wikipedia. Those edits are usually vandalism and wrong information. I would like to have the rollback so I can perform better reverting on Wikipedia. I have been editing, making articles and doing edit reverts since September 2010 on English Wikipedia. I wanna revert edits mostly when there is vandalism or wrong information in certain articles.

Angela Maureen (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No established track record. ~25 vandalism reverts, with no warnings. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:L293D

Requesting rollback to continue reverting LTAs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 00:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, TheSandDoctor, and TonyBallioni: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as flag remover): Their past conduct is of some concern here, as is the tendency to "click the big red button" to see what would happen and being borderline incivil when concerns and temporary consequences are brought forward. Combined with a behavioural pattern as pointed out by Chrissymad, these raise not insignificant concern. It is also worth mentioning/noting that this request was their first edit back from their wiki-break, which occurred shortly after this discussion on their talk page where they were encouraged to wait until they have demonstrated further understanding around when rolling back is appropriate. To be clear, I am not indefinitely opposed to the flag being re-assigned, but believe that they should demonstrate further understanding (previous sentence) before it be re-assigned. I would love nothing more than to re-assign this flag, but do not think this is the time. I will leave the decision on this to another admin as I am INVOLVED, but think that these concerns should be raised. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By my spot-check, L293D is a competent, experienced rollbacker who made one exceedingly minor error in deciding to click "rollback" in somebody's userspace, not because he didn't know when it's inappropriate to revert, but because he thought he would get an error message due an incorrect assumption that it was a single-user page history. In spite of providing this explanation, apologizing, and explaining that he recognized the error and tried to self-revert but couldn't (as the user in question reverted the bad rollback immediately), he still had rollback revoked, which seems to me to be legitimate, but of questionable necessity to prevent disruption to the project. To substantiate a "pattern" of disruptive automated tool use, a single incident from four months earlier was brought up, when L293D used AWB to...fix typos on discussion pages? The most disruptive aspect of that incident looks to be the bumbling response, including a terrible decision to use mass rollback. No. I'm not convinced that it was a good idea to revoke in the first place, it comes across as an overzealous, draconian response that appears to punish an honest, good faith mistake, which is something we quite simply don't do. I'm also very concerned about the "confidential" off-wiki talks that supposedly contributed to the revocation, to me this seems like a clear failing of WP:ADMINACCT. I'm strongly inclined to approve. Swarm ♠ 06:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I'm not trying to knock on TheSandDoctor, who isn't necessarily in the wrong. I'm sure this situation could have been much more easily resolved had L293D not reacted the way he had originally, and had actually made an attempt to address the situation here. However, I don't think he needs to be given any more of a hard time given the lack of severity of the issues here. Swarm ♠ 06:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to reassign the permission as well. The use of rollback to see what error message it would produce was a bad idea, but it would have caused relatively minor disruption had the discussion just ended when L293D apologized and Primefac responded with advice. The use of AWB to refactor talk page discussions also strikes me as something that happened a while ago, and it's not exactly that relevant to the rollback permission either. I'm not convinced that these two issues are enough to conclude that L293D would be a net negative to the project if rollback is returned. It is true that L293D has the tendency to get unnecessarily heated when he is criticized (c.f. [2]). On the other hand, when questioned about his misuse of rollback, he gave a civil apology, in my view.
    As a side note to Swarm's comment, I don't think it was a violation of WP:ADMINACCT to get a second opinion from another administrator off-wiki, e.g. on IRC, before removing the permission (in fact, I feel like this is good practice before taking a potentially controversial action, if only to get a sanity check) as long as TheSandDoctor is able to give a reasonable explanation for the action and take full responsibility for it after he makes it (i.e. admins can't use the fact that there was off-wiki discussion as a justification for making the action). Unfortunately in this case, while removing rollback was within TheSandDoctor's discretion as an uninvolved administrator at the time, I'm not sure it was the best thing for the project on balance. Mz7 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there’s nothing wrong with getting a second opinion off-wiki. That’s best practice. But TSD specifically cited a discussion among multiple administrators as contributing to the decision to revoke, and when asked for detailes, directly refused to provide them based on the claim that the details are “confidential”. That’s BS and something the community/Arbcom would admonish for. As I’ve said, the discretionary revocation stands on its own merits. But citing an administrative discussion and refusing to provide details is what’s unacceptable. Swarm ♠ 16:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: You're right, I guess I did get a bit nippy in the "confidential" - which was not my intention and I do apologize for (L293D). The discussion took place on IRC between myself, Primefac (who brought the matter to my attention), Chrissymad, and a couple others. Those are the two others I remember off-hand, the text is buried in the logs as the channel is fairly active. Oshwah also comes to mind, but may or may not have been involved. I will try to find the logs for August 5th before they get buried much more. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: It took some time and a lot of scrolling, but can confirm that Oshwah was involved, as was There'sNoTime (albeit only semi/slightly). The channel is tagged as no public logging and posting logs would be against standards as well, so I am unable to do so. What I can say though is that the consensus of that discussion was leaning towards temporary removal of rollback and had not changed to my knowledge when the right was removed after I got off work. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think what @Swarm: is trying to get at (correct me if i'm wrong), TSD, is that the discussions should not be occurring off-wiki. Consensus needs to be happening onwiki. Now you have also implicated several administrators and a non-admin now, with no available text to review. This leaves everyone's mind to wander as to what was said and how much of a cabal is against one user. I know this is not your intention, but it creates more consequences than it's worth. Do I think your right to follow one policy and not publish the logs, likely. The problem is you now can't give the details on a "consensus" that anyone could pull out of their hat. It's way way better to log it onwiki, and then not shock everyone by posting their names from a IRC discussion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being a regular rollback perm-patroller, I figured a question (plus implied warning) was sufficient. Was slightly surprised when it was removed, but moreso by their reply to said removal. I don't think one mistake is enough to justify permanent removal, with the usual caveats about being cautious and breathing when something doesn't go your way. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Consensus seems to be to restore. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or @Beeblebrox: beat me to it by seconds. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too slow, but I would have reinstated rollback too - TNT 💖 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=856276727"