Smashpedia:Requests for rollback

This page is for requesting that one is granted rollback powers on SmashWiki.

Rules

 * Only self-nominations are allowed.
 * All new nominees should post their name below as a in a level 3 header ( ===Username=== ). Underneath, the user should state why he/she would like to be granted Rollback powers.
 * Users who wish to support, oppose, or comment on the nomination may do so underneath the person requesting Rollback powers.
 * After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived and moved to an appropriate subpage.

Archives

 * KP317
 * Pikamander2
 * Miles.oppenheimer
 * Shadowcrest
 * JtM
 * GalaxiaD
 * Charitwo
 * Toon Ganondorf
 * Defiant Elements
 * Blue Ninjakoopa
 * Smorekingxg456
 * Cheezperson
 * Oxico
 * MarioGalaxy
 * Y462
 * Fried beef1
 * ParaGoomba348

Gutripper
Yes I know I was a poor contributor at the start, but I really have changed. During my time as administrator of the Smash Arena, I learned a lot about how to get along with other users and about responsibilty. I have always tried to make good edits, and I do revert vandalism as much as I can. Rollback powers would not be wasted on me. I have a decent amount of reverts, and rollback would help me boost that number.

Thank you -- Gutripper Speak if you are worthy  00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Votes/Comments

 * -Y462 says this person is smart and is working hard for smashwiki, even as we speak this person is editing countless pages. 100% for rollback for Gutripper. No, make it 200%. Signed by 264Y - (Discussion •  W h o Cares? )  05:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I honestly don't see why not. He's active and makes decent contributions.  Blue Ninjakoopa  Happy Holidays 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You go girl! - My infamous remark plays back. 'Tripper deserves Rollback powers. -- Pikabro PIKA  CHU!  00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to say why? Smore King  Hap py Holidays!  13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he's active, mature, helpful and reverts vandalism when he finds it. Reverting isn't something you can just do, like editing. There has to be stuff to revert. Besides Smore, we know that you oppose Gutripper. You don't have to keep commenting on other people's support.  Pikabro PIKA  CHU!  23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if I supported him, I would have given a reason and asked about yours. Smore King  Hap py Holidays!  23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support:I don't get it...your an awesome user here who is great with handling the vandal wars we have sometimes, yet you don't have rollback already?
 * Sadly, people tend not to think I'm up for it.  Gutripper Speak if you are worthy 


 * Support - My friend, you have come a long way from the ignorant moron who told Fyre she was full of herself. Now you are making decent edits, reverting vandalism (which is the whole idea), are active despite huge commitments, and a mature contributor. I'm proud of your progress and I hope that you get this privelege. You deserve it. -- Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does he deserve it? Your reason doesn't really have anything to do with rollback.SZL (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that he will make a good rollbackr because he makes decent edits, is active, reverts vandalism and is mature. I said that. If you disagree, oppose him. -- Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having fun changing your reason to make him seem stupid? Smoreking   2009 is coming!   22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. "You're active, and you're not a vandal. IMO, those are the only things that matter." --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 01:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Pikamander2^ Mas  ter  man   Happy  Holidays!  !  01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support He'll do good things with rollback.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like...?[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T  01:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert vandalism. His edits are good in heart, and he will fight vandalism here when he gets the chance.   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Reliable and trustworthy, but also Pikamander's (in)famous line. Miles ( talk)   02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Decent guy. I haven't been here long, but from what I can tell, he is a great asset for fighting vandalism. Why shouldn't he get it''' -- The Steel Avenger  Taste my cold steel!


 * s'port ^^^  Ike's Best Buddy Merry! Christmas!! 
 * Yeah, you kind of need to put a reason. If "^^^" means the vote above yours, he didn't really put a reason either.[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T  01:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually did. If you had taken the time to read rather than rushing to get as much reasons to ruin this guy's chances. I have noticed that his has been the only one that you've dissected to question every vot they get.  The Steel Avenger  Taste my cold steel! 
 * Having fun changing your reason to make him seem stupid? You just added for fighting vandalism. You guys are just making SZL seem like an arrogant cock, and trust me, he isn't. Smoreking   2009 is coming!   22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support As TG said, the old days of Gutripper going up and PAing Fyre are gone, and I believe that Gutripper has matured enough to turn a new page in his Smashwiki profile. He can only help with rollback, and will be very helpful to Smashwiki with rollback.  Fried  beef  1    Ho ho ho!   21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I hate to be this guy, but you haven't really reverted much, so why would you need Rollback? Smore King  Hap py Holidays!  23:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's active, dude. Isn't that what matters? Anyone can revert, it's the activity that counts.  Blue Ninjakoopa  Happy Holidays 23:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I reverted vandalism on Clarinet Hawk's page from the stupid loser called Shit Ass Fuckers. Also, I was checking for his other vandalism, but it had already been taken care of. -- Gutripper Speak if you are worthy  23:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think SK shouldn't be so harsh with this oppose. You're also mature, something key to having rollback powers.  Blue Ninjakoopa  Happy Holidays 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice how I said this guy? That's because somebody(an admin, DE, Shadowcrest, etc.) is going to come by and notice that too, so I just wanted to say it. As with the message I've posted on Gutripper's talk page, he hasn't reverted much, and somebody's going to notice it. And if you think I'm being a dick right now, I'm sorry. Smore King  Hap py Holidays!  00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Smoreking. Also, if there's not enough vandalism to revert in order for you to run, then wait until there is enough, and then run.[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T  23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna say this as a third-party, and not as a pal/good friend/really cool guy that knows Gutripper. If you wait for enough vandalism (and we get plenty), why should he wait till the last minute to run if some vandal like Willy on Wheels come and mess everything up?  There's plenty of vandalism on SW, and we should have more vandal fighters.  Fried  beef  1    Ho ho ho!   01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rephrase. If there's not enough vandalism for you to revert, then wait until you have reverted enough, then run. OK?[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T  21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Slight Support He got some more reverts, and he's reasonably active.[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T / O  13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Pikamander & Smoreking. B AL τʀο  [  talk  ] 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I refer to Pikamander's infamous quote. Heh...  MarioGalaxy Talk 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Slight Support. Gutripper is reasonably active and seemingly trustworthy. He has more than a handful of reverts; however, it's unclear from his contributions to what extent reverting vandalism is a part of his normal pattern of editing (i.e. it's unclear how dedicated he is to janitorial/cleanup tasks).  Overall, slight support.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.Gutripper has more than a handful of reverts, which is good enough for me. He is also quite active. Y462 (T • C  • E ) 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support ^Same reason as stated above^ and Gutripper is also an active contributer.-- MỸŠŦЄЯỸ ЊӘҒҒ   TALK  04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I heard about this guy around a week ago, and even if you have been here longer then that, I've seen nothing that... Well... Really warrants anything to do with rollback. "Handsome"   Hollywood   K.  23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean aside from, you know, reverting vandalism? Also, what does the fact that you only heard about this guy a week ago have to do with anything?  Are you implying that he's too new or something?  Fact is that he's been around since October '08... so...  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... You would know ab-I'm not even gonna say it. Shadowcrest DefiantElements, I don't see anything that sets him apart from the rest when following your logic of number of reverts. "Handsome"   Hollywood   K.  00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For a start, I know that you know who I am, so that's a flat out lie. Next point is, just because you've not heard of me doesn't mean anything. Do your research before you mark Strong Oppose.  Gutripper Speak 
 * I didn't know who you were, and I don't need to research n00bs like you. I have every right to put in Oppose, and it may not make the slightest difference but it's staying that way. KP These Rules Are Stupid 07:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to have reasons. Rollback is based on reverts, not whether you know them or not. Either come up with a decent excuse to oppose, or withdraw your statement.  Gutripper Speak 
 * I don't need to do anything. You are such a -- NO. My reason is because you don't have enough reverts. Withdraw that. KP  These Rules Are Stupid 07:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will. 'Tripper has significantly more reverts than Semi, yet you supported Semi, and are now opposing 'Tripper on the basis of too few reverts.  Double standard is double?  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Semicolon also has been with this wiki for a long time and IMO is long overdue for Sysop priviledges. Gutripper has an attitude almost as bad as mine (almost) and, I wouldn't consider that significant. Kperfekt722  These Rules Are Stupid 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If he is overdue for Sysop privelliges, then he should run. That shouldn't, and doesn't, affect my number of reverts, which I must remind you, is all this is supposed to be about.  Gutripper Speak 

Semicolon
I should get rollback because I've been an active member/contributor on the wiki for approximately a year. For an example of some of my more outstanding contributions, I single-handedly finished the character attributes section standardization, and I authored the newly adopted policy: SmashWiki:Notability. I have on many occasions reverted vandalism, and I take a role in improving the wiki. Also, I can spell. Semicolon (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes/Comments

 * Neutral Although your prominent editing style is not reverting, you still have a few reverts, and you're fairly active, but I'd like to see some more reverts.[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T / O  22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. You do some really dumb shit, but you would put these tools to good use...  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. You have a total of 589 contributions going back to April 2008. Of those 589 contributions, you have, as far as I can tell (feel free to correct me if I missed something), a grand total of 4 reverts.  That you're an active and well-established member of the community is all well and good, and I don't think you'd misuse rollback, but I also see no reason to warrant your having it.  Rollback isn't a reward for having been a good, or even an outstanding, contributor, it's about fighting vandalism, and you simply haven't done very much of that.   –  Defiant Elements   +talk  23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fighting vandalism involves 2 things: actually undoing vandalism, and tagging pages that are joke/vandal pages. My contributions are far more in the second category. I often find that in my attempts to revert vandalism, I am 'beaten-to-the-punch' so to speak by those with rollback. In the end, considering your views on rollback, I understand your hesitance to support my RfR, but if you took the time to investigate the second category, you would find your claim that I do not fight vandalism to be false. Semicolon (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that what you say is true, but the fact remains that rollback would in no way, shape, and/or form aid you in tagging joke/vandal pages so I'm not quite sure what to make of your argument. That said, I think "neutral" more correctly assesses my views on this RfR, so I'm changing my vote accordingly. –  Defiant Elements   +talk  00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "...it's about fighting vandalism, and you simply haven't done very much of that." That was the statement I was assailing, which was basically the core of your argument. Semicolon (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, touche. Allow me to rephrase: Rollback is about reverting vandalism, and you simply haven't done very much of that.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the harm? "Handsome"   Hollywood   K.  01:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I truly dislike the notion of a system of user rights management based on a "why not?/what's the harm?" rationale. Theoretically, for each quasi-active individual to whom you grant rollback rights, counter-vandal response time will improve by some variable amount.  Similarly, most users wouldn't actually abuse rollback; there is a far greater likelihood that they simply wouldn't use it at all.  So, by a "what's the harm?" rationale, we should be handing out rollback privileges to every user who's demonstrated that they're not a vandal, regardless of activity, number of reverts, or any other criteria.  That being the case, I'm not going to support an RfA/RfR unless the candidate can demonstrate an actual need.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support As much as I don't like you, there... Really isn't a arguing with your edits. "Handsome"   Hollywood   K.  00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Although he is an active user he does not seem to be around as often as some of the users. His edits have also been miniscule in comparison to some of the other user's contributions.  Z mario  01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read any of his contributions or did you just look at editcount tbh --  Shadow  crest  01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's examine the exquisite irony here for a moment. Your last content-ful edit to this wiki was...January 2nd. Your last appearance before this was practically a month ago. I've made sure that my mainspace edits have always been quality. The number is smaller for the very reason that I work to cleanup entire articles in a single edit, rather than a very large number of smaller edits. You can't look at the number to make a judgment in my case. In yours, however...Semicolon (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were you talking about ;? And secondly, on certain wiki's, everyone DOES get rollback privlidges if they are proven not to be a vandal. Not saying that's the best solution, but... Yeah... "Handsome"   Hollywood   K.  01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen Semicolon, i dont think you should get Rollback becuase you need to make more contributions that are worthwhile and not some petty edits. Quality over Quantity.  Z mario 
 * I suggest you go read the 2 10kb posts semicolon posted on 1 topic within the past week before continuing further --  Shadow  crest  01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Zmario, then reasonably you can't oppose me on those grounds either. Also, I'm around here every single day. You aren't. Semicolon (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @Kperfect: That's nice... On some wikis people are banned for being typical liberal morons (well... really only one of which I know, but you get the point). To be perfectly honest, I'd rather we give everyone (meaning all non-vandals) rollback than have RfRs on which people are voting based on the sole criterion of "why not?"  That said, I'd still say that it would be a poor idea since, on balance, the increased number of abuses perpetrated with rollback (if we were to give essentially everyone rollback, the absolute number of such abuses would undoubtedly increase) would far outweigh whatever small potential increase in counter-vandal response time would be derived from giving most users rollback (most users would use rollback only rarely, besides which, there's really no benefit in having 30 rollback'rs watching RCs at any given time relative to having, say, 3 rollback'rs -- for all intents and purposes, the vandalism would be reverted in the same amount of time).  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just... Think. Really? "Handsome"   Hollywood   K.  01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ... – Defiant Elements   +talk  01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yo, chill! Zdogg went neutral! Stop being so mean to him. (Directed to all of you).  Blue Ninjakoopa Talk 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely a great asset. Should get it for sure.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 
 * ...why?[[Image:SZL.png|45px]] UP / T / O  17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know why. It is extremely obvious.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Oppose - You've got barely any reverts.  Blue Ninjakoopa Talk 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: While your reverts are low in number, you do enough cleanup work t merit these tools.  Gutripper Speak 


 * Slight Support. Low revert count, but a solid history of janitorial work leads me to believe he would effectively fight vandalism with this tool. Miles ( talk)   22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Slight Support Great asset to this wiki-janitorial work, cleaning up pages, solving disputes... but low number of reverts. Nevertheless, I will still support.  Fried  beef  1    1/26/09!   22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't clean up a page with rollback, Fried Beef.  Blue Ninjakoopa Talk 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know... I'm just listing Semicolon's positive contributions to this wiki.  Fried beef  1    1/26/09!   02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Positive? LAWL.  Blue Ninjakoopa Talk 02:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; User can spell. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Sky, not you too! XD  Blue Ninjakoopa Talk 03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BNK, of all people, you know Semi's right :P  Fried beef  1    1/26/09!   03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)