Wikiquote:Requests for Rollback/Ilovemydoodle
From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User now blocked. --Ferien (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Original pre-voting comments available here
Hi, I would like Rollback here to better revert vandalism, mainly using SWViewer. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 01:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ferien: Could you vote here? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 06:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kalki: Vote? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 00:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Koavf: Could you vote here? There has only been one vote here so-far. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 04:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kalki: Vote? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 00:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Requests for rollback are generally not votes but I'm not impressed by this, tagging innocent users as sockpuppets, even though they have been asked to stop tagging socks completely. They created a subpage on a WMF-banned editor's userpage and copied the content they had created to that subpage (admins can see User:Wisiaszymia/talk). Also there was the situation about redacting every post they had made which was not too long ago. Overall, I'm not sure I could trust Ilovemydoodle with rollback at the moment. --Ferien (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @UDScott: Vote? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supportas nom – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Ilovemydoodle, you can't support yourself. --Ferien (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ferien brings up a relevant point about some poor judgement, but we all make mistakes. This user seems to be genuinely concerned with undoing vandalism on this project and rollback is about as lite-weight of a user right as there can be. If he abuses it, take it away. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Koavf: Thank you so much!! – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 05:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, while in hindsight it was clearly a mistake and I very sorry, I think it was sort-of understandable at the time and I am not the only user who made that mistake. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose ilmd is a highly problematic user with blocks in multiple projects, who doesn't understand basic policies. Praxidicae (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Praxidicae: What basic policies are you referring to? What do those other projects have anything to do with this wiki? How does any of that have to do with reverting vandalism? If your going to oppose, at least provide legitimate reasons rather than irrelevant opinions. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ilmd lacks the competence and maturity to hold advanced user rights. Their attempts at vandal fighting on this and other projects have been extremely disruptive and have made a colossal mess. On this project they created a mess of useless vandal fighting templates which have been deleted with near unanimous consensus at VFD, made repeated baseless and evidence free accusations of sock puppetry against other editors, engaged in disruptive behaviour such as ridiculous "redactions" of vandalism and comments, they have pestered admins over minor vandalism in a way that becomes a massive nuisance, and they overreact when dealing with vandals in a way that only results in feeding the trolls. They have had to apologise to a load of people and have been blocked on another project within the last couple of weeks for disruption related to their vandal fighting, namely accusing an IP range of being an "LTA" without proper evidence, then blindly mass reverting all edits made by that IP range, including productive edits and edits in languages they could not speak and could not evaluate. I agree with @Praxidicae's statement that he doesn't understand basic policies, 10,000 edits in they still haven't grasped basic, basic level stuff like "You don't !vote support in your own requests for permissions" or "You don't pester every single person you disagree with" or "You don't ask all your friends to come vote in support of you". 192.76.8.74 10:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an IP range that has been blocked hundreds of times not disruptive. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 10:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a massive mobile phone network used by thousands of people. It was repeatedly pointed out to you by the stewards that the edits on different projects were not the same LTA but were actually different people. A number of editors from other projects turned up to say that the edits from the network on their project were fine. Despite this you went on a cross wiki reverting spree and indiscriminately undid edits just because they came from that network, and were blocked on Wiktionary and warned on a good half dozen other projects because of it. 192.76.8.74 15:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an IP range that has been blocked hundreds of times not disruptive. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 10:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.