Smashpedia:Requests for rollback/Shadowcrest

Shadowcrest
I am requesting rollback status because it's the first step in becoming dictator it'll help me better watch RC and revert vandalism/general stupidity. Here's my contribs, because I know everyone is going to check it, or if you'd prefer not to bother with each edit here's the edit count too. Also, before you oppose me because of my comparitvely low edit count, keep in mind that I've made these contributions in a much shorter time-frame than other editors that succeeded (my edits/day actually exceeded Pikamander's at last check); I also did a bunch of policy- and post-merge cleanup- stuff in my userspace first, so a number of edits in user(talk) namespaces should be in main/smashwiki, respectively; also do notice that I've had rollback on other wikis for 6 months now, so inexperience is not a factor. Etcetera etcetera... the end. --Shadow crest 22:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Votes/comments

 * Slight support. I've clashed with Shadowcrest a few times, but despite his lower edit count and his "dictator role" in the SLAPAHO movie, I think he's earned it. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. You're active, and you're not a vandal. IMO, those are the only things that matter. Rollback is very useful, as I just discovered with the vandal that appeared half an hour ago. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 23:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  Neutral  (changed to support). I thought you said that rollback was stupid?   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * U herd rong tbh. I said it's nothing special, not that it was stupid. There's a line, however thin.
 * Additionally, due to lack of response, this is still a prerequisite for sysop, which (I guess everyone has noticed :P ) I am striving for. Therefore, the it's the first step in becoming dictator was said only half humorously. It is the "first step" to becoming sysop (though I wish it weren't), but I don't intend to be a dictator with sysop powers. --Shadow crest 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CH thinks you will, dictator : )  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 05:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I hope he enjoys irony, because I spent a lot of time arguing against the admins who acted dictatory and it'd make no sense for me to do the same thing they did. :P --Shadow crest 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I  slightly support, but only because I'm really confused, and your a dictator. ROAR!  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 05:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support against my better judgment :). No, really, you're a fixer, and a helper, and you're experienced with wikia. No reason not to. Semicolon (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 Neutral  (changed to support) Hatake91 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For one you know your stuff about wikia.
 * Your not a vandal or an idiot. (hopefully)
 * You seem to be levelheaded and respect our policies.
 * Your very sure about your opinion and feel strongly about it while being open minded.
 * But you have gotten into a few long arguments with many users here
 * I personally don't feel you actually understand what this wiki needs but hey, that can change
 * You don't exactly need rollback rights for what most of your edits are.
 * And most importantly you have a sense of humor.
 * Arguing isn't inherently bad. Arguing to improve the wiki should be construed as a positive thing tbh.
 * "What the wiki needs" is subjective, and our opinions are probably very different. What does it need in your opinion?
 * I am mostly requesting rollback because it's a requirement for sysop for whatever reason. So, it's not really "rollback" I need per se, it's whatever you'd call it (I don't want to say 'trust' because it really isn't) that is associated with it. --Shadow crest  23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By arguing I meant theres a good chance it'll turn into a "bad" argument thats going nowhere with no end in sight. Those arguments aren't good for the wiki. What the wiki needs is just saying plain out I don't trust you. by that I mean that I don't think your gonna do vandalism or abuse power. But rather Its just my own messed up opinion. Well I guess thats not really a valid reason but your not that bad so I guess I'll change it to Support then. - Hatake91 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See? All it took was 4 lines and I got you to change your vote. Arguing wins cases :P
 * If you don't trust me, that's a valid reason not to support me. (Though if you think I'll become dictator, you are incorrect.) I do try not to let my arguments stray off into nitpick-land, but I guess it does happen sometimes. --Shadow crest 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)