SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Archive 2

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This is an archive of rollback requests in chronological order.

Passed

Aidanzapunk

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Aidan the Aura Master 14:58, 1 March 2015 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 18:43, 1 March 2015 (EST)

ScoreCounter

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ScoreCounter 09:30, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed #2 is not the best example in a vacuum, but it could be justified given the editor's history, so I'm okay with it. Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 10:00, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Nyargleblargle

• #1
• #2 (I apologize for my snarkiness)
• And the one that made me feel that I needed rollback to combat troublesome edits, #3

(contributions) Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed I'd never rollback #3, but I can see why other people would, so okay. Toomai Glittershine The Zesty 19:04, 17 June 2015 (EDT)

INoMed

• #1
• #2
• #3

(Contributions) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 05:35, 14 October 2015 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 23:45, 14 October 2015 (EDT)

Serpent King

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Serpent∞King (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 08:39, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Disaster Flare

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Disaster Flare (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed #1 is dubious on its own but does make sense given the editor's history. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 08:39, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Drilly Dilly

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Drilly the Hedgehog 19:58, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 18:12, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Failed

Awesomelink234

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Awesomelink234 is really feeling it! 07:10, 16 October 2014 (EDT)

Your first two links are the same. In addition, both that and the third link are reversions of the same "string" of vandalism. Please provide two other reversions from different sources. Toomai Glittershine The Bold 10:40, 16 October 2014 (EDT)

Should we just call this one as a failed request? The user I don't think have been active in a while and I don't think he has made improvements to his examples. Dots (talk) The Captain 16:04, 1 March 2015 (EST)

Result: Failed The user in question has not responded to request for improving credentials. Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 18:43, 1 March 2015 (EST)

Serpent King

• #1
• #2
• #3

Sorry, I wasn't sure to link my reversions or the offenders' revisions.
(contributions) Serpent∞King (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

Result: Failed It looks to me like you don't understand the purpose of the rollback tool. Your example 1 is clearly reversion of vandalism, but 2 and 3 are both good-faith edits by new users, and from the looks of things you would have used rollback on them simply because they involved more than one edit that you wanted to undo. That's not what rollback is for. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 10:00, 25 September 2015 (EDT)

Nutta Butta

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ---Preceding unsigned comment added by BOO! Or maybe Nutta. 12:08, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

I'd like for you to explain why #3 should be a rollback and not an undo-with-useful-summary. Toomai Glittershine The Yellow 18:12, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

My two cents (even though I'm not Nutta), the user put the information on Pichu for no reason whatsoever, and personally, I'd rollback that one too. Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 19:49, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

It felt to me like clearly some form of vandalism, since there has never been any evidence that Pichu was going to be in brawl. I may be wrong though, and looking at Chippy's edits now he/she generally makes good faith edits. That probably is not the best example. Should I look for a replacement example? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by BOO! Or maybe Nutta. 13:06, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Okay yes give a replacement example. Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 11:44, 3 November 2015 (EST)

I'll just link it here so that the conversation isn't confusing if I replace it. This was the second or third time someone had to add the notability tag back within only a few minutes. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:50, 3 November 2015 (EST)

...so... ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 11:55, 7 November 2015 (EST)

Result: Failed It is clear to me from your replacement example that you are not ready for the rollback tool. I'll explain why.

First, let's look at what happened in your replacement example:

• An IP removed a delete-for-notability tag, which had been sitting there for 18 days (i.e. not recent compared to the below edits).
• About 2 hours later: You undid the above edit with an edit summary to the tone of "this isn't ready to be removed".
• About 2 hours later: The IP removes the delete-for-notability tag while also adding 1.1kB of information (which is currently still on the page).
• 2 minutes later: You re-added the notability tag with an edit summary to the tone of "okay, yes, good info, but keep the tag on". This is the edit you claim would have been acceptable use of rollback.

So, let's say you rollbacked the edit in question instead. This means that you would have replaced the tag and removed the 1.1kB of info with no explanation whatsoever. The IP, who has a history of good-faith contributions to pages other than this one, would look at this and assume you decided that all the stuff he just added as an attempt to prove notability was a waste of time. I think we can agree this is bad overall.

So. I asked for another edit you think could have been a rollback, and you provided an edit that cannot be done as a rollback (i.e. selective reversion of an edit with a summary). Therefore, I must conclude you're not ready to have the tool. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 12:32, 7 November 2015 (EST)