Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

• Vineyard93 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I am respectfully requesting rollback rights as I am committed to upholding the quality and reliability of Wikipedia by actively monitoring recent changes and promptly reverting vandalism and unconstructive edits. Having familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I believe that the rollback tool will allow me to more efficiently contribute to the maintenance of article integrity and the overall improvement of the encyclopedia. Vineyard93 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot ^talk 01:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Hi Vineyard93, I am glad that you are interested in reverting vandalism, but I do not think you are ready for rollback. First, I see lots of reverts for what you call vandalism that are not followed up by warnings to the user. Second, I see some edits that you are reverting and calling vandalism are not vandalism. Instead, you are engaged in an edit war. In cases like these, you need to discuss your concerns with other users on the talk page and come to a consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotemgottem (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello. I saw that rollbackers need 200+ edits and noticed that I've cleared that mark so here is my request:

I have been actively reverting vandalism via WP:RW and filters. I apply an adequate edit summary and warn for every single rollback I make using RedWarn. I understand clearly that rollback is for cases of clear-cut vandalism and other edits where the reason for the revert is obvious (such as uncited defamatory statements on a living person).

Whenever I encounter a good-faith yet low-quality edit, I either leave it be or undo it with a suitable custom edit summary (and a talkpage message explaining why the edit was reverted). Having this user right would allow me to try out Huggle which I believe would be more efficient than RedWarn's RC patrol or refreshing the browser. Thank you. Spotemgottem (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 179 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot ^talk 22:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I don't have 200 edits in the mainspace. Please ignore this request then. Spotemgottem (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) well, the 200 mainspace edits aren't an absolute requirement, and I've seen you doing good work at WP:RC enough to vouch for you. PS: you can use this tool to check your edits on separate namespaces. Good luck! Regards, — DVRTed (Talk) 05:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually have 200 edits now. Spotemgottem (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SG5536B (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hi, I've had several months of experience patrolling recent changes and clearing vandalism. In addition, I often revert sockpuppet edits. I therefore humbly request for the rollback right so that reverting obvious vandalism and sockpuppet/LTA edits (such as by using mass rollback) would be easier. I've read through WP:Rollback thoroughly as well. I understand that for the usual rollback, I need to try to use it with caution as it performs reverts in just one click/tap. Thank you. ~SG5536B 01:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]