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 would like to use rollback right in enwiki. Now I revert vandalism with the help of twinkle by recent changes patrol. But I thinks using huggle and igloo is more effective than twinkle. So I like to use rollback right. I have practice with counter vandalism with twinkle. Thank you. PATH SLOPU (Talk) 11:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBottalk 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Path slopu: You seem to spend a lot of time warning vandals hours after the edits have already been reverted, and in some instances, adding a duplicate warning after they have already been warned, e.g. . In these cases, I feel the warning may not have been necessary. Do you think you could explain your workflow here? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mz7:Hi greetings, I reverted vandalism with twinkle in several times. Sometimes if vandalism has already reverted, I had placed warning templates if warnings is not done. I also reported some frequent vandals in WP:AIV. I used duplicate warnings in sometimes. But I stopped it, when I got advises from experienced vandal fighters and AIV administrators. Now I only revert vandalism and also give warnings in user talk page. Thank you.PATH SLOPU (Talk) 05:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done. I think you need more experience. In addition to the above concern about inconsistent/duplicate warnings, on at least two recent occasions, I believe you misidentified good-faith edits as vandalism: see . Mz7 (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)