Smashpedia:Requests for rollback

This page documents an official Smashpedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

Shortcut: SW:RFR

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.

Current Requests

Kperfekt

I'm Kperfekt. I usually spell check articles on here, or revert vandalism. Most of you will probably look at my edit count and be impressed until you realize the majority of those edits are to talk pages. I know I don't have the best track record, but since 2008 I've changed. I don't troll people, I don't disrespect them, and I have not stirred up trouble in a long time. I want rollback powers for two reasons. One, is obviously because I could revert vandalism or untrue but good faith edits quickly and without clogging the recent edits. But, the second reason, as non-related as it may be, is due to me feeling like I have to prove something. I don't want anyone here to think I'm the same jerk I once was. I want to show everyone that I can be trusted as an editor here, and that I can be trusted with even the slightest bit of power. I ask that I at least be given the powers to show I will not in any way, shape, or form abuse them. And I truly, truly apologize for the attitude I once had. Please, give me a second chance. At the bottom of this request I will add the other Wiki's I have started or that I administrate on, several of which are thriving. Thank you for your time.

Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 01:16, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support

Support - I don't doubt your abilities. BNK^[E|T|C] 01:22, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support: $wgHasReverts = "true"; $wgHasRecentReverts = "false"; That said, I don't think that it matters much given that you show that you've got a good idea of what rollback is, and that, like BNK, you've changed your attitude. As a result, I think I'm ok with giving you the go-ahead here. RAN1 (talk • contributions) 01:33, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support: Despite your qualms with the administration in the past, there's no denying that you're a conscientious contributor to the wiki. You'd make a fine rollbacker. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 20:16, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I think KP's earned a chance at using these tools. I really can't find a good reason on why to oppose. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 02:45, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Slight Support: Your lack of recent reverts and past history lets you down, but I trust you to use the tool sensibly. PenguinofDeath 09:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Support. you may be a bit of an a-hole, but you still do work on this wiki, and i can respect that. Xtrme What ever
Slight See PoD, and I trust KP as a user.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 02:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong Oppose

You've had 3+ chances already; this is not your "second" chance.
I don't trust you.
You have been blocked 7+ times, one of them at first a permaban.
Your last revert was in February.
Only 27 reverts, considering you've been part of this wiki for a very long time.
Edit C-Hawk linked below.

98.111.95.78 02:05, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, leaning slightly to support: I hadn't noticed that you were also referred to KP317, and so missed that little detail about your 3+ chances. After reading all the chances you've had, I don't know if this time has been long enough to get away from 7+ blocks and a bunch of requests tried. I can tell that you've changed, hence leaning to support, but I'm not sure that you've given enough time to this so as to make you've trusted. RAN1 (talk • contributions) 02:26, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral leaning towards support. KP's been behaving himself here for quite a while now, and does revert some. Miles (talk) 04:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Neutralificationization. See the two comments above. --Havoc Reaper '48 22:02, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
You're no longer a liability but you don't really edit. I don't see a compelling reason for you to have the tools, but I don't see a compelling reason to deny them to you. As a side note, despite my noted lack of faith in people, I do believe you've changed. I haven't talked to you really since our super long irc chat, goodness like nearly a year ago, but most people do a lot of growing up at about this time in their lives, if I am correct about your age and circumstances. We had something of a very neutral understanding back then methinks, but we also can't completely ignore your history. You had a natural talent for causing shitstorms, and while I don't see any way you can cause shitstorms with rollback, I'm still somewhat wary. Semicolon (talk) 05:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Neutral leaning towards opposed, for what it's worth. I'm starting to remember everything a bit clearer now. I'm also starting to think that even though you haven't been a liability, you haven't been a liability because you've not edited, not you've not been a liability but you haven't edited. Your attitude throughout the comments section is one of entitlement. You're not entitled to rollback, KP, anything but. Rollback isn't run on a +/- votes system. It's run on a 'okay, someone convince the bureaus you deserve these tools.' You're at an advantage typically because you get the first say and the say everyone reads. There could be 25+ supports but if all they say is 'Woop woop I love the sombrero give this guy rollback woop woop' and 1 person, an IP even, says 'Here are the following reasons why this user should not get rollback' and provides several examples of conduct that make us not think you are fit for rollback or that you have a place on this site with any sort of power, then you don't get rollback. TL;DR version: (1) you're not entitled to rollback so don't even vaguely act like it (2) this isn't a voting sytem. Semicolon (talk) 15:34, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
+1 to everything semi has said. Also, I will add two things. First, Rollback should be something you get after you've proved that you are a better contributor, not something you should need to be a good contributor. I don't think that's how you meant it, so I don't hold it against you. Second, I want to call atention to something you said in (one of) you last requests: "I'm requesting rollback rights...because its [sic] the first step toward being on the top of this Wiki." I sincerely hope this is not why you are requesting rollback this time... Basically, my stance is this: I am not going to support your bid for rollback for the stated reasons and other history, but I will not stand in the way of a community decision to give you rollback. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
27 reverts is pretty good, but that hasn't been that recently. I'm still not sure.highway pumpy 00:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral learning barely towards oppose, for reading all of the reasons given. --KoRoBeNiKi (talk) 19:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks to RAN1 for linking the other wiki's for me. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 01:44, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what real say an IP address has on this issue, but I respond:

I did not mean second chance as in rollback, I meant a second chance on this website.
You don't even know me, so don't say you don't trust me.
4 of those blocks were taken off, and I got an apology from the person who banned me.

As I said before, I know I don't have the best track record. I think rollback powers would be a good chance for me to show I've changed. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 03:31, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

To Clarinet Hawk, by saying the top of the wiki, I meant it as becoming a leader of this wiki, such as you or Miles, etc.. I didn't mean it in an evil way, I meant it in that I hope to be an admin one day. Whether or not I can prove myself as a different person remains to be seen. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 02:41, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Due to the overwhelming amount of supports or neutrals leaning toward support, I suggest, but am not against, this request being closed as a success. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 09:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but requests aren't decided by a voting basis. Votes are just placed to give the admins knowledge of what the community says. 98.111.95.78 19:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

True, but 6 supports and 6 neutrals against 1 opposing vote gives KP some pretty good odds. Also, you said that you don't "trust" KP. This may not be the right place to ask this, but can you elaborate on this distrust? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 20:36, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, KP's recent behavior is what matters. His conduct two years ago should have little impact on your feelings towards his request for rollback. BNK^[E|T|C] 21:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

If I may say so myself, that's not quite the case. We're also supposed to consider our opinion of the user in question. Trust in said user can be a factor in itself here; if you recall, it's what made me decide to change from support to neutral, since I'm really not sure anymore that I've seen a change in the KP of half a year ago, and the KP of now, so to say. RAN1 (talk • contributions) 00:39, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

@KP. 1) Not your call on this being closed. 2) Taking a look at the supports, what I see is as follows: 2 users actually vouching that you would use the tools well, 2 basically saying you probably would use them well, and two others who haven't made a mainspace edit to this wiki in over a year who you most likely drummed up from some other corner of the internet to support you. And 3) you say you've changed, and most of your edits support this statement, except these two gems: here and here. I know more than a few websites where these alone would get you blocked. So, no, I'm not ready to close this as I would hardly call the above a consensus nor do I have any personal belief that this is the right time. (To everyone) Feel free to explain to me why this should be otherwise. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:34, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Also consider that even thought there is only one oppose, I have 6 reasons, whereas many of the people on the support side have the same reason. 98.111.95.78 04:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

As for those 2 outbursts, I meant the first one sarcastically. You I and I know, (Speaking to Clarinet Hawk) that SmoreKing, Semicolon, and I are are the same way when it comes to n00bs on here begging for MegaMan to become a character. Not an outburst, just some sarcasm. I don't see how the second one could get anyone banned for anything at all (and I'm quite serious), but that one was just me saying it's no big deal if the logo (which is still being debated on) gets changed? I didn't use vulgar language, and I may have snuck in some sarcasm, but hey, a lot of people around here do. Moving on to the IP address, I don't know who you are, and I would still like to know how much power a non-member of this community has on a subject like this. One of your reasons was "you don't trust me". You don't know me, so you can't say that. Finally, I could go through every passes rollback request and find numerous people who have either: 1: Rollback'd less then me, or B: Haven't rollback'd in ages. If any of this, at all, sounded snarky or rude, please, PLEASE tell me so I can stop saying anything that may aggravate you, instead of just going on saying it. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 08:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

If you're arguing that because I don't know you IRL that I can't say I don't trust you, then the reverse is also true and we should throw out any comments from people saying that they do trust you. So, it then becomes a look at your edits to make a determination, and honestly, I don't think that helps you too much. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:24, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

About the n00b thing, I agree, but that was a tad extreme on your part, although yes, there has been worse from others. Also, the IP address has the same value in the community as registered users.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 11:45, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

@Kperfect: I am not a "Nonmember". I've been here since Semptember, and soon I will finally have my account. With all due respect, I've probably reverted more vandalism than you have here. I have seen you make your PA's, attack administrators, once even leading them to a site where you proceeded to attack them. I have a reason not to trust you. 98.111.95.78 02:34, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it. But if you've been here since September, why does your earliest edit show up as March 13th? Furthermore, I haven't done anything constituting a PA or anything like that since before September. Finally, (and I don't mean to insult Clarinet Hawk here), but why don't you check for yourself what really happened before just believing an administrator. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 05:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

@ the first part, 98 changed IPs in March. He has been here since September or something like that. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:06, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't realize that. Still... Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 06:11, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I saw the site in question. You explicitly said "C-Hawk, you're the biggest dick that ever came to this wiki". If you had said that here, you would have been permabanned. Of course that is a thing of the past, but you have not done anything to redeam yourself. BNK helped me fight off an army of vandals for like half an hour until the admins came. I dare you to beat that. If you do, I might change my trust. 98.111.95.78 00:47, May 6, 2010 (UTC)