User:WereSpielChequers/Rollback

During my September 2008 RFA I was asked what my criteria would be for granting Rollback, my initial answer was that "If sysoped and immediately approached for Rollback I would refer the applicant to an admin who did grant rollbacks. I'm sure that after a while I would start granting Rollback, but only after discussing criteria with experienced admins."

Which is of course a bit of a copout so I've expanded it somewhat.

I would look at the requester's contributions and specifically their reversion of vandalism to check that they understood what vandalism was.
I would review their contribution history and behaviour against my past experience of rogue users to see if I felt I could trust them not to use Rollback for vandalism.
I would review their history and especially their record of blocks or other conflict to see if I could trust them to use Rollback in good faith and not as part of an edit war. This does not mean I would automatically decline Rollback to a vandalfighter who had also been involved in edit wars, but I would expect their assurance that they would only use Rollback against Vandals, and probably pay more attention to their subsequent contributions than otherwise.
If they had a close relationship with another Admin or senior Editor such as being an adoptee then if appropriate I would check with that admin or editor.
If they had previously had Rollback taken away I would want to know why and by who and what had changed that would justify their having a second chance. Needless to say if the admin's involved were still around I would consult them about such a request.

As of February 2009 I'm not yet an admin and if I were I'm not sure I'd be ready to do the second step.

PS this is a Wiki - comments on these criteria are welcome.

Looks good to me. It seems that typically 500 edits are required before a rollback is granted. Exceptions? Or would this be a good line in the sand? --Chasingsol ^(talk) 16:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the nature of the edits would be important. 500 typo and redlink fixes would be enough to show me that someone was here to help build an encyclopaedia, but I couldn't judge if they understood the difference between vandalism and good faith edits that they disagreed with. Were Spiel Chequers 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)