FANDOM


I'd like to know the reasoning for the RfR being passed. Only 30% of the votes are actually supports, yet it still got passed as if there were no opposes. RAN1 21:33, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't pass it as though there were no opposes, please check more thoroughly. Furthermore, if you want to go all numbers = consensus (which they don't, I'm simply playing along), if the "leaning to support" counts as one third of a vote then it is a tie and if they count for anything more support had majority, so zzz. Now, onto the actual reason I passed it: your & the other opposing people either had lame reasons for opposing or at least didn't post smart ones. For once, think big picture. I could have done what has usually been done, which is to oppose/fail the request if the user had little/no rollback reverts. But here's the big picture part: what good would that have done for the wiki? None. KoRo is a pretty good contributor and I fully trust him not to abuse the tools; granting him the tool would almost surely have caused no harm and will most likely do good in the future. Unless you can present links to edits that would lead me to believe KoRo is going to abuse rollback and never use it properly (in which case I would happily revert my actions), stop pretending that promoting KoRo wasn't in the best interest of the wiki. Shadowcrest 22:35, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
I have my reservations about KoRo. For one, he (or tried to act as though he) didn't know that rollback was only a vandal-reversion tool. He instead filled his candidate statement with what I'd consider fluff about how he's a great contributor, with only a few words about how he'd fight vandalism, as compared to most passing statements. He didn't even show that he knew what vandalism was, as evidenced by one of his arguments against one of mine in the comments section. A rollbacker needs to pay attention to every detail to tell what are bad faith edits and what are good faith edits, and until I can see that he would follow this to the fullest, I would see almost no reason to give him the rollback tool. That, combined with the fact that he had no reversions of vandalism within the past few months, nearly fails his rollback completely. As for the fact that he's a "good contributor," just because he's a good contributor doesn't mean he's a vandal fighter, and all of this just shows that he doesn't even know how to fight vandalism. Like I said in the RfR, I think he should wait for rollback until he shows that he actually will fight vandalism. As for "majority = consensus", it's a matter of what is the opinion of the overall community, not the minority / majority, I will admit. However, a general neutral for an RfX ≠ promote, and not one RfX I have seen on this wiki or others has passed like that, which is what I'm pointing out here. One aside here, Miles said "leaning to slight support," not just "leaning to support," so… RAN1 00:17, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he recently has been combatting vandalism recently so our statements have become obselete. 98.117.158.220 00:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
That makes two reverts over the past few months or so. Sadly, that still doesn't come even as close to what is required for a user to need the rollback tool. RAN1 01:17, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond to your above post in more detail later, but you're completely wrong- there have been 3 reverts in 5 days and I am too lazy to check further to disprove your entirely inaccurate statement. Shadowcrest 03:01, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Oh noes, I'm off by about 1 revert! -_-. Needless to say, there's almost no difference between the number of reverts. I'd like to see a better argument when you respond to this, though, considering how you've already assumed that my statement is "entirely inaccurate" without even giving an/a (good) argument, but anyways. RAN1 16:33, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Stop being terrible. Your entire argument is that he hasn't reverted enough, and when you post absolutely false bullshit like "That makes two reverts over the past few months or so." I'm going to call you on it. When you are factually incorrect and I prove you wrong with straight-up numbers, don't give me some half-assed response of "me not giving a good argument" or whatever.
Now on to the rest of your unsupported argument. "He didn't know that rollback was only a vandal-reversion tool." Could you point to any diffs that say such? I'm seeing nothing of the sort on this RfR, where he only refers to rollback as a reverting tool- if there are edits that show elsewhere otherwise I'd like to see them. "He instead filled his candidate statement with what I'd consider fluff about how he's a great contributor[...]". You mean kind of like nearly every other successful RfR (to list but a few)? Read them all- they all say basically the same thing, "I'm active and I've done stuff for the wiki herp de derp", yours included. "He didn't even show that he knew what vandalism was." I missed how that shows that he doesn't know what vandalism is. If you wanted to dispute the definition of revert with that comment you may have a point, but I still do not see that as a reason to keep rollback from him. "That, combined with the fact that he had no reversions of vandalism within the past few months, nearly fails his rollback completely." Not only do I and others obviously disagree, as 98.117.158.220 pointed out all of your oppose votes are now invalid based on the fact that KoRo has made a number of vandalism reverts. Also, regarding your comment on the RfA about not promoting him because that would take effort- let's not pretend that giving rollback is an arduous task that really matters. Shadowcrest 18:59, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Did I mention three reverts is almost equal to two? I thought I did, though you can't seem to understand that 3-2=1, where as you're trying to say that 3-2="a lot," which is all but false and fallacious.
As for the rest:
  1. You seem to have missed this sentence of his RfR statement entirely: "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." That doesn't tell me he knows what rollback is when he says that it allows him to edit the wiki better and keep SW a great resource for Smash, and just a few words about vandalism. The only other mention of vandalism reversion is about how many of his edits is about reverting vandalism, which just isn't true.
  2. The other RfRs had 50% fluff, while his was about 80%, so don't go saying "But everyone has fluff in their RfR" when I'm pointing out that a lot of his RfR is fluff. That's your own definition of a "straw man," in case you haven't noticed.
  3. I see you cut off the rest of my sentence, seeing as that would collapse your argument entirely. It was (italicizing the removed section): "He didn't even show that he knew what vandalism was, as evidenced by one of his arguments against one of mine in the comments section." I was referring to the response to the first comment here. Please reference the entire argument next time when you want to mark my argument as false.
  4. And I thought I pointed out that two (now three) reverts aren't even close to what's required to actually need the tool. Why do you still think that I'm not correct, as I see no argument that currently counters mine.
  5. "Fine" for the "arduous task," "not fine" for "really matters." He simply doesn't deserve the tool, which does matter, and it seems to me that you think that he deserves the tool for being a good contributor, not a good vandalism reverter, which isn't what RfRs are about. Reread SW:ROLL if you think I'm wrong.
And I still don't see why to give him the rollback tool, given how all of your arguments have failed. RAN1 19:45, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Give up, RAN - your argument lost all meaning a long time ago, and now you're just wikilawyering, and badly, at that... If you really want to keep discussing this, get on IRC. PenguinofDeath 19:59, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
^ tbh, that was one of the most terrible posts I've ever seen.
The reason your statement about making 2 rollbacks in a few months was totally bullshit was because of the time frame. If KoRo makes 3 reverts in a few days, your entire argument falls to pieces.
  1. ""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." Are you blind or are you purposely ignoring what he's saying?
  2. That's blatantly false. Not even arguable- just wrong. 0/10.
  3. I was referring to that comment. I still fail to see how that comment displays ignorance of the definition of vandalism.
  4. And I thought I made it pretty clear that I and others see that as an unimportant point. (Go re-read my big picture post above for why.)
  5. Actually, no, rollback is really not important. Unless it is being abused (which I have already stated I don't feel he will), I really dgaf who has it. Regarding the points on ROLL, he has reverted and has intentions of performing reverts in the future with the tool so zzz.
So yeah, rather than fill up RC with this terrible discussion it'd be a lot easier if you came on IRC and emailed me or something if you insist on arguing. Shadowcrest 21:16, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
How many times will I have to state that 3 reverts is measly compared to the number of reverts almost every other person has made? It doesn't make sense to give someone rollback for only three reverts of vandalism. If that were so, every non-vandalizing user on every other wiki would get rollback, and I don't think that's true, primarily because it would be a waste.
  1. Are you blind or are you purposely ignoring what I'm saying? Reread it again since you've presented almost nothing to counter the argument. Again, I'm saying he only says a few words about vandalism, whereas you're trying to present my argument as "there are no words about vandalism." Again, more strawmans.
  2. Orly? What I said is true for almost every kind of successful Request for Rollback ( including mine, to list a lot). I see a lot more talk about vandalism reversion in these RfRs than I'll ever see here.
  3. I forget the part where we labeled good faith edits (but still not true information) as vandalism. That's what I was countering his argument before, and sadly, you also missed that part.
  4. That argument completely fails now. Your big picture post said that giving it to him would do more good than harm because he wouldn't abuse it, supposedly. Not abusing it indeed. That is one of the worst uses of rollback I have ever seen, but anyways…
  5. Did I mention he abused the tool? He really doesn't deserve it now, he abused it the first time he actually utilized the tool.
Not going on the IRC, I have better ways to use my time. As for flooding RC, enhanced RC takes care of that, so unless you're using Monobook, I don't see any reason why to take it off-wiki, except "why not?" And the fact that he abused the tool is too important to take off-wiki anyways, so no. RAN1 01:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
What! He rollbacked me? I stated a reason for that edit and he just reverted it without explanation. You're right, that's horrible use of rollback. 98.117.158.220 03:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.