Sorry, temporary accounts cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
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.
I'd like to revert vandalism at a higher level. I have been using Twinkle for a while, and recently finished a course at the Counter Vandalism Unit's Academy with @Vermont:, who believes that I am ready for these rights (see here).
I am a recent changes patroller and have been reverting vandalism for over five months. I would like to have the rollback privilege in order to do this more efficiently. Regarding my block log, I was blocked in June for edit-warring with IP 73.209.66.109 on multiple articles, including Unforgettable (French Montana song), Zapotec civilization and Let Me Go (Hailee Steinfeld and Alesso song). Since then I have familiarised myself with Wikipedia:Edit warring, and now know that I should examine the diffs (even if the edits were made by a user/IP who was blocked) instead of reverting blindly. Regards, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK09:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am filing rollback request again cause i really need rollback right to fight aganist vandalism and make wikipedia clean as my eyes are always into countering vandalism. As i'm recently countering vandalism with twinkle, i found that huggle is more advanced tool for reverting vandalism. Hope to get this privilege. TheRedBox (Talk)06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Boothsift i'm in the middle of my mind here and decided to request before than that as always gets edit conflict and some ips are clever as they edit vandal from multiple ips at once & i realize that i should file a request once again cause huggle will help me out more in countering vandalism for sure and i think i've gained more experience than before as you can find it out through my vandal works. so, lets the closing admin decide as i request after two weeks. TheRedBox (Talk)06:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The first place I generally look when reviewing a rollback request is the user talk page. A typical red flag is when new users legitimately complain about being reverted. It looks like you mislabeled a few good-faith edits as vandalism on these occasions: [2][3]. It is important to realize that an edit is not necessarily vandalism just because it is unhelpful—see WP:NOTVAND. For example, "removing infobox" and the other things you mention in this message are all honest mistakes that could have been done by an editor new to Wikipedia – yet you stated that these acts were vandalism. When you accuse an editor of vandalism, you are accusing them of editing to deliberately harm Wikipedia. Even if an edit completely destroys the look of a page, as long as it was done with the intention of helping Wikipedia, it is not considered vandalism and should therefore be handled differently. It's important to get this right, since false accusations of vandalism can and do scare potential new contributors away, and it's especially important for rollback, since Huggle would let you make many dozens of reverts very quickly. Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mz7 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 06:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done. The first place I generally look when reviewing a rollback request is the user talk page. A typical red flag is when new users legitimately complain about being reverted. It looks like you mislabeled a few good-faith edits as vandalism on these occasions: [2][3]. It is important to realize that an edit is not necessarily vandalism just because it is unhelpful—see WP:NOTVAND. For example, "removing infobox" and the other things you mention in this message are all honest mistakes that could have been done by an editor new to Wikipedia – yet you stated that these acts were vandalism. When you accuse an editor of vandalism, you are accusing them of editing to deliberately harm Wikipedia. Even if an edit completely destroys the look of a page, as long as it was done with the intention of helping Wikipedia, it is not considered vandalism and should therefore be handled differently. It's important to get this right, since false accusations of vandalism can and do scare potential new contributors away, and it's especially important for rollback, since Huggle would let you make many dozens of reverts very quickly. Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)