Smashpedia:Requests for rollback/KoRoBeNiKi

Result: passed. Shadowcrest 21:08, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

KoRoBeNiKi
Hello, everybody. I am KoRoBeNiKi and I am requesting rollback rights. I have made many edits, mostly specifically for the n64 and competitive side of smash. A large amount of my edits are reverting vandalism or creating new articles and I have nominated articles for deletion and helped multiple users before. I am personally wanting rollback to allow myself to edit this wiki better and keep this website to be a great resource of smash information while reverting vandalism. --KoRoBeNiKi (talk) 17:41, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) User positively edits the wiki and follows policies. Frankly, I don't care about anything else. I am confident that KoRo won't abuse the tool and only good can come from granting it to him, so I see no reason for this not to pass.  Shadowcrest  20:27, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) What Shadowcrest said, tbh.  Penguin  of  Death   20:57, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) "You're active, and you're not a vandal. IMO, those are the only things that matter."  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 00:26, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the oppose comments, this user has actually made several reverts to vandalism. Also, as Cheezperson says, he's not a vandal. He's a noteworthy user and may oneday become an admin. 98.117.158.220 03:25, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
color="navy">A ]] N 1''' 04:15, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: While you've been here for very long, I see no reason as to why we should give you rollback yet. First of all, creating new articles, nominating articles for deletion, and aiding users cannot be helped at all by the rollback tool. As for vandalism-reverting, I have not seen you make any reverts of vandalism within your past 200 edits. If I am mistaken, please correct me by presenting some links to the reverts that you've made, but until then I do not believe that you deserve rollback.  R  A  N 1 20:06, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true. Look at his contributions. 98.117.158.220 03:25, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to see any vandalism reverts at all. Please point them out (links are preferred) so I can verify that he's done enough vandalism-reverting to deserve the tool. ''' R [[User talk:RAN1|<font
 * Here. May not be really vandalism, but a revert, which is all that matters. 98.117.158.220 04:40, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, reverting is not the criteria that matters, it is reverts of vandalism. That link above is not a revert of vandalism KoRoBeNiKi added content to the article, but wrote it in such a way that it looked like vandalism. The IP simply reverted that, resulting in a small edit war. It was even discussed here. Given that it was an edit war and not vandalism reverting, it doesn't qualify as something that one would use for rollback (it's explicitly forbidden in the policy). Again, until I see good examples of vandalism reverting, I see no reason for giving him rollback because he has no need for the tool.  R A  N 1 05:30, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * He's reported a vandal before. 98.117.158.220 05:49, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another. 98.117.158.220 05:52, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, he's used his power to merge well. He can be trusted with rollback. 98.117.158.220 05:57, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting the fact that he's a good user, or claiming that he's not good enough to be trusted with rollback. He's contributed well to the Smasher namespace, and his knowledge of the Smasher community is very thorough given how great his articles are, as well as the other articles he's edited as well. My problem with giving him rollback is that I really don't see any vandalism reverts from him. Over the past month or so, I haven't seen KoRoBeNiKi revert one of the 50+ vandalism attacks that have occurred. In response to the links you've posted: the first link was on KoRoBeNiKi asking that a vandal should be blocked for vandalizing his Smasher page (those attacks were reverted by another user), while the second is just cleanup. Though this is good general contributing, this isn't a good example of reverting vandalism. The problem here is not that he isn't a good contributor, it is that he does not have any vandalism reverting that shows that he deserves and needs the tool. Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather wait a month and see if he has any real initiative regarding reversion of vandalism.  R A  N 1 19:49, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is not the only reason for rollback. It can also be used for cleaning up articles, which he does a lot. 98.117.158.220 01:00, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it cannot be used to cleanup articles. Rollback can only revert all of the last edits by the same user on an article, and should only be used on vandalism because you are supposed to provide reasoning in the edit summary while reverting for any other reason than vandalism; rollback does not allow you to put any reasoning, for it has a fixed edit summary. This would not help KoRoBeNiKi in editing and cleaning up articles in the way you have described. Again, I think he should come back and submit a second RfR in a month or two when he has a considerable amount of vandal reversions if he would like to have the rollback tool.  R A  N 1 02:24, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me. I'm changing my vote. 98.117.158.220 03:55, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, leaning towards Neutral. Well, to put RAN's opposition nicely.... Rollback is really for people with a decent revert-count, and being a bit more active on the wiki would be nice. We just need a bit more proof of how good you are with reverting edits, that's all. Havoc Reaper  48  20:15, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Unless I'm mistaken, you have a grand total of three reverts in your past 500 edits (not counting a self-revert). This makes me think that rollback would be wasted on you.  Enigmatic   Mr.   L  22:31, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Checked the guidlines. All he should have is too have reverted vandalism before, which he's done. 98.117.158.220 04:46, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * RAN1's comments above speak for me. Plus, even if KoRoBeNiKi had reverted vandalism a few times before, it's not so simple as someone reverts vandalism once and gains rollback.  Otherwise requests like this one would have passed.  Enigmatic   Mr.   L  21:29, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That request was withdrawn before a decision could be made. 98.117.158.220 00:41, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Guess you guys are right. I've changed my vote. 98.117.158.220 03:58, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, leaning towards support As the other say, haven't really seen much vandalism reverts from you but your edits seem to be positive but you just need to revert more vandalism. ☆ The  Solar  Dragon  ( Happy New Year ) ☆ 21:07, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, leaning to support While you do not have a high amount of reverts, you do contribute.  Cloned Pickle  22:07, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral slightly towards support. Reasonable, productive edits on a semi-frequent basis. Minimal history of vandalism-reversion, however.  Miles ( talk)   03:04, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) User has never reverted vandalism until very recently. 98.117.158.220 04:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted vandalism before, the majority of vandalism edits I have reverted have been part of overall larger edits, where instead of converting them to the last edit, I change it myself and add new information --KoRoBeNiKi (talk) 07:34, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. There is a rather large difference between removing useless info and vandalism. In your "majority of vandalism edits" I only see the first, which does not constitute vandalism reverting. And anyways, you can't use rollback to vandalism-revert and add content at the same time, so it would be pretty much useless for you. It would be a waste for both us and for you; we would have to assign you rollback, while you wouldn't be helped at all. Those problems are exactly the reasons why I'm against your request.  R A  N 1 20:14, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Requesting a close to this RfR; it's been open here for over a week, and I think just about everyone who wanted to vote has voted.  R A  N 1 20:14, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump: It's been 22 days now since it was open, and there's been no activity here for a week. Close, anybody?  R A  N 1 17:22, January 28, 2010 (UTC)