User talk:Robvanvee

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

After ten years of service, it just takes the actions of one admin!

Removal of rollback

Hi. Having seen the report at

the policy : "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." and "Similarly, editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war." such as your edit-warring at Taylor Gang Entertainment. This is not a reason to roll back, nor is this (notability is a criteria for standalone articles, what you might mean here is "not verifiable" or "no source supplied" or "off-topic for this article"). The practical upshot is that you can still revert edits without requiring rollback, and it will mandate you having to add an accurate edit summary for every edit you undo. For what it's worth, I have made hundreds of thousands of edits to Wikipedia without ever needing rollback, and although it is de-facto included as part of the admin toolset, I didn't ask for it and have a script that manually disables it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Addition - I have opened this action for review at Wikipedia:Administrative action review in case you wish to challenge or appeal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per my close at XRV, I've returned your Rollback userrights. I will note that the use of full-rollback coupled with redwarn edit summaries remains somewhat unclear under policy interpretation, and should be considered for use (over, say, RW's pseudo-rollback) in the future, unless/until a policy text change occurs. Yours, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nosebagbear. So what exactly did I do wrong that warranted this initial action by Ritchie333? Rob van vee 13:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the rollback use, I believe you were fine to act the way you did, as edit summaries were provided. There were other concerns raised, such as with regard to non-3RR edit warring (you can read some more on that in the XRV case), but Ritchie can also expand on that Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as discussed at

Redwarn. I think we need to have a discussion on revisiting the policy at some point; in any case, that doesn't affect this. I'd personally rather that Redwarn just marked these edits as "undo", which is what they really are, as Rollback was only ever designed as a bulk sledgehammer for seriously disruptive vandals. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK Nosebagbear so just for clarification, I did nothing wrong with regards to rollback (the EW issue was already dealt with by Jayron32 on the ANI report where I responded positively to his warning), yet I'm accused here, at the ANI report and at XRV of abusing the tool until Ritchie333 is corrected by pretty much everyone at XRV. On top of that, after nearly 10 years of almost disruption-free editing (the EW incident being a first) I'm not even given the courtesy of at least a note or a warning on my talk page before having my rollback right removed. Where is your assumption of good faith? This action seemingly motivated in some part by my non response to the IP in the conversation preceeding this one (Ritchie333, do you even know what unfolded there before you jumped to conclusions?). To say this is absolute bullshit and an apology is due is an understatement in my opinion. If you're not going to be held to account for your mistake (which I've no interest in seeing TBH) at least have the decency to man-up, acknowledge your fault and apologise. Rob van vee 09:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, your messages appears to have a very mixed aim - is it targeted at Ritchie or myself? Ritchie can speak for himself, in regards to my actions, my involved is limited purely to assessing the consensus of XRV, which opted for returning the userrights, which I did. I would note that while return of the userrights was a very clear position, the judgement as to whether its use was flawed, at all, was not unanimous (notwithstanding others raising issue of EW). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nosebagbear. I'm talking to Ritchie333 and referring to his questionable actions in this matter. Rob van vee 13:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was following a policy that turns out to be outdated and wrong. Retiring and calling me a "wanker" is not going to help your case. Can you chill out, and just remember most of us are trying to do the right thing here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's loss

I'm not around much these days, but I saw your retirement notice and just wanted to say thanks for all you've done for this encyclopedia. When I was actively editing we occasionally crossed paths while dealing with PR socks on music articles, and I always appreciated your constant hard work to make Wikipedia better, especially in areas where people were so persistent in trying to make Wikipedia worse. However you move on from here, I'm sorry this happened to you, and I wish you all the best. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thumb (Kyuss song).ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thumb (Kyuss song).ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]