| Revision as of 10:36, 9 April 2011 view sourceDeskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 edits →User:Socialservice: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:51, 9 April 2011 view source Feezo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators13,813 edits →User:Socialservice: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ::::Honestly, there's not a lot to go on here. The user has done very little anti-vandalism work as far as I can tell, and has made similar reversions of non-vandalism edits using the undo feature , with the default edit summary. The rollback tool can cause a moderate amount of damage if misused, which is why it's not enabled by default. It rather hurts to be called "petty" over this. ] <FONT SIZE="-2">] | ])</FONT> 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | ::::Honestly, there's not a lot to go on here. The user has done very little anti-vandalism work as far as I can tell, and has made similar reversions of non-vandalism edits using the undo feature , with the default edit summary. The rollback tool can cause a moderate amount of damage if misused, which is why it's not enabled by default. It rather hurts to be called "petty" over this. ] <FONT SIZE="-2">] | ])</FONT> 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::::What you said before was petty, but what you've said now wasn't. Thanks. --] ] 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | :::::What you said before was petty, but what you've said now wasn't. Thanks. --] ] 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I suppose I should have made the original context clearer: that rvv was one reversion out of an available sample size of about 3. Edit summary usage is important, since it's otherwise hard to judge what's going on in an editor's mind when they make a revert. Still, I really would hate to think I was being petty towards a good faith user, and stopped only because someone else showed up. Actually, if you could do me the favor of looking over other permissions I've ], I would greatly appreciate it. There's not much oversight in this department, and I wouldn't mind you looking over my shoulder. ] <FONT SIZE="-2">] | ])</FONT> 10:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:51, 9 April 2011
Rollback (add request)
Shortcuts
User:Artoasis
- Artoasis · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
- I have contributed regularly to BLPs, and would like to have another tool to deal with unconstructive vandalism. Thank you. Artoasis (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. User:Jim Sweeney
- Jim Sweeney · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
- I have contributed regularly to WP:MILHIST articles and encountering more and more non-constructive edits and vandalism. I now believe I have been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know when and how to use this tool.Thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Jamietw
- Jamietw · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
- I have confirmation and voice on the #cvn-wp-en counter vandalism channel and when alerted to vandalism I revert it and warn the vandal, but this process can take time and so I would like the rollback right so that I can revert the vandalism easier, I would be especially interested in using Huggle but this requires the Rollback Right. I am a reviewer on the English Misplaced Pages and I also have AWB rights and as such I use Auto Wiki Browser regularly, I am a New Page Patroller and as such I have knowledge of Misplaced Pages Policies, I also help new users and have auto voice on the English Misplaced Pages Help IRC Channel. Thank you, Jamietw (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Liveon001
- Liveon001 · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
- I contribute quite often to articles pertaining to Armenia and the Caucasus region and occasionally encounter vandalism that should be reverted. I would like to be able to use the rollback option to do so more efficiently. Thank you. Liveon001 (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Socialservice
- Socialservice · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)
- Reason for requesting rollback I have contributed regularly to Sports pages and have encountered vandalism many times.I would like to have another tool to deal with non-constructive vandalism. Thank you. Socialservice (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done In this edit, you used the edit summary 'rvv', which stands for "reverting vandalism" — yet the previous edits did not appear to be vandalism. It's important to distinguish between unconstructive edits made in good faith, and intentional vandalism, as the rollback tool may be used on the latter, but not the former. Read WP:VANDALISM and WP:ROLLBACK, manually revert some vandalism, use proper edit summaries, and feel free to reapply later. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I never knew that. It's pretty plausible that this user didn't either. It seems a bit petty to decline him rollback on the basis of a single letter in an edit summary. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, there's not a lot to go on here. The user has done very little anti-vandalism work as far as I can tell, and has made similar reversions of non-vandalism edits using the undo feature , with the default edit summary. The rollback tool can cause a moderate amount of damage if misused, which is why it's not enabled by default. It rather hurts to be called "petty" over this. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- What you said before was petty, but what you've said now wasn't. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have made the original context clearer: that rvv was one reversion out of an available sample size of about 3. Edit summary usage is important, since it's otherwise hard to judge what's going on in an editor's mind when they make a revert. Still, I really would hate to think I was being petty towards a good faith user, and stopped only because someone else showed up. Actually, if you could do me the favor of looking over other permissions I've denied, I would greatly appreciate it. There's not much oversight in this department, and I wouldn't mind you looking over my shoulder. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- What you said before was petty, but what you've said now wasn't. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, there's not a lot to go on here. The user has done very little anti-vandalism work as far as I can tell, and has made similar reversions of non-vandalism edits using the undo feature , with the default edit summary. The rollback tool can cause a moderate amount of damage if misused, which is why it's not enabled by default. It rather hurts to be called "petty" over this. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I never knew that. It's pretty plausible that this user didn't either. It seems a bit petty to decline him rollback on the basis of a single letter in an edit summary. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)