SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Archive 1

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

Solar Dragon

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 10:25, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 10:30, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Wolf rulez!

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Wolf rulez! Playtime's over! 09:06, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 10:50, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Megatron1

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) MegaTron1XD 16:01, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Golden 16:31, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Mr. Anon

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Mr. Anon (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 16:40, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Dr. Pain 99

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) DoctorPain99 22:24, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Ghostbuster 23:27, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

BlindColours

• #1
• #2
• #3

(Contributions) Blindcolours Ganbarimasu! 15:26, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 19:46, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

RoyboyX

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) RoyboyX (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 17:22, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

ReiDemon

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ReiDemon 21:51, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 22:04, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Mousehunter321

• link #1
• link #2
• link #3

(contributions) Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Result: ? Passed Edit #3 was part of a mass-edit based on a good-faith misunderstanding. Generally, rollback should not be used on good-faith edits, especially if there has yet to be any talk page contact. However, users doing mass edits are unlikely to see edit summaries of the undoing of their edits, which would make rollback the more useful action. Given that this situation is very much on the fence, and the user's other two examples are good (though #2 can see the fence), this request is passed. Toomai Glittershine The Yellow 23:09, 27 January 2012 (EST)

.....

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ..... The Overmind 14:34, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Loony 16:14, 28 January 2012 (EST)

HavocReaper48

• Alpha
• Beta
• Gamma

(contributions) --HavocReaper48 23:18, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Producer 23:55, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Luigi540

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Luigi540 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Golden 17:32, 31 January 2012 (EST)

ToastUltimatum

• 1
• 2
• 3

(contributions) Toast ltimatum 05:13, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Spark 07:39, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Air Conditioner

• The slaying of the spambot
• The vanquishing of the vandal
• The defeat of the dodo

(contributions) Air Conditioner Keep cool! 19:21, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 19:39, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

RickTommy

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) RickTommy (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Yoshi 11:02, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Brawls of fury

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

(contributions) BRAWLS OF FURY 00:56, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 09:24, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Terrible

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Terrible is a Valentine 19:02, 2 February 2013 (EST)

2 is good. 3 is alright. But I don't like 1. Would you like to argue your case? Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 19:34, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Now that I think about it, 1 is not that good, but will I still be promoted to Rollback if one of them is wrong? Terrible is a Valentine 20:32, 2 February 2013 (EST)

I'd like to voice my opinion. While 1 seems in good faith, it is a case of an obviously wrong edit that shouldn't require an edit summary to undo, so while Rollback is probably not the best course of action, it's reasonable in this case. DoctorPain99 20:34, 2 February 2013 (EST)

If all three examples would be correct uses of rollback, then the RfR will pass

I'm assuming you have to get them all good reverts. Dots The Penguin 20:36, 2 February 2013 (EST)

You can still get rollback if you have 2/3. I'll think about this and decide in a day or two. Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 22:20, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Result: ? Passed #1 is debatable, but the other two show understanding of the tool. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 10:40, 5 February 2013 (EST)

DarkFox01

#1: Not even Shwido can do this

#2: The IP violated 1RV later

#3: Plain ridiculous

(contributions) DarkFox01A NEW RECORD! 15:47, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed #2 is the most debatable since it would be best to leave an edit summary for why controversial stuff shouldn't be deleted (the first time). #3 is okay assuming it's not April Fools' every day of the year. Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 16:01, 2 April 2013 (EDT)

Ac2k

• 1
• 2
• 3

(Contributions) Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:47, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed The IP of edit #2 only made three edits in a short timeframe which you called "deliberately misspelling words". I feel that using rollback for those three edits would be a little extreme, as the sequence reads to me like a kid fooling around than an intent to disrupt. #3 I would have undone the first time and rollbacked only if repeated, but rollbacking it the first time would be fine. Toomai Glittershine The Sharp 18:09, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Scr7

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Scr7 13:46, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Edit #1 was an isolated good-faith edit. It is obvious undo material due to its irrelevance, but not rollback material unless it is repeated several times. 2 and 3 are obvious rollback material, but they're from the same vandal attack, so all in all you've shown pretty much 1 example of correct rollback usage; therefore I'm not convinced you currently have the credentials. If you can provice two more examples of potential rollback you still have a chance to pass this. Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 18:09, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

[4] (violated 1RV)

[5]

[6]

[7]

Scr7 18:43, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Alright. Of those new examples, 1 and 2 are good, while 3 and 4 are okay (arguable but ultimately valid). I feel comfortable with passing this.

Result: ? Passed Toomai Glittershine The Eggster 23:02, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Timson622222

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Timson622222 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2013 (EST)

1 is good. 3 is dubious, and I would prefer undo as opposed to rollback (first and only edit by user, so probably deserves a proper edit summary), but is acceptable. But 2 I have honestly no idea why it's being presented as a potential rollback edit - I don't know the subject, so as far as I can tell it looks like a legit good-faith edit to add information. What's your thinking here? Toomai Glittershine The Breegull 23:16, 11 November 2013 (EST)

The contributor in question, to me, is clearly trying to falsely compare Axe to Drake as a joke. Just by glancing at the picture he thought it would be funny to comment on the article with a sarcastic edit summary ("omg its drake") about how the pro Pikachu player is supposedly also a famed pop artist. Nothing about that seems like good faith, especially since Axe's real name (which does not match up with Drake's real name) is presented on the page in the infobox, obviously disproving their relation. --Timson622222 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2013 (EST)

Okay then, I was unaware of "Drake" being a "pop artist". I'm still not sure it's rollback-worthy as opposed to being better as an undo but I think you'll be good with the tool.

Result: ? Passed Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 16:27, 17 December 2013 (EST)

ChuckNorris24

• [8]

• [9]

• [10]

(contributions) ChuckNorris 12:46, 8 January 2014 (EST)

Result: ? Passed Would've preferred not seeing two examples from one vandal, but you seem to know how to use the tool. Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 13:03, 8 January 2014 (EST)

ZeldaStarfoxfan2164

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2014 (EST)

Result: ? Passed Would've preferred not seeing two examples from one vandal, but you seem to know how to use the tool. Toomai Glittershine The Free 19:06, 8 January 2014 (EST)

Berrenta

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Berrenta (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Victorious 18:15, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Rtzxy

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Rtzxy Smashing! 23:50, 20 September 2014 (EDT)

OK, it seems I messed up on the codes. Whoops. Rtzxy Smashing! 23:52, 20 September 2014 (EDT)

Alright, they're fixed. Sorry about that. Rtzxy Smashing! 00:13, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed I personally would've undone the third one the first time, but that's okay. Toomai Glittershine The Victorious 21:54, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

FirstaLasto (attempt #2)

• #1
• #2
• #3

♡FirstaLasto♥ 17:25, 3 November 2014 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Researcher 18:50, 3 November 2014 (EST)

Failed

Avengingbandit

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Avengingbandit 06:59, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

I'm not going to just close this as failed, but can you provide some other examples. FIrst, these are three of the same edit. Second, I would not recommend rollback in this situation as you can't use edit summary and that would be the best tool for letting us know about Mr. Curious. So, I'd like to give you a chance to link to some other edits that demonstrate where/how you would use rollback. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 07:15, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

I realized that they may not be different reverts, but I do know the difference between correct uses and incorrect uses of rollback. Unfortunately though, these are the only reverts I have so far ever since I joined SmashWiki in which rollback would be necessary, so you can just close this as failed, or you can check my contributions to see if I have any more reverts in which rollback would be necessary. Avengingbandit 07:25, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

OK, I don't remember reverting any more vandalism or spam other than this, so for now, I withdraw. Avengingbandit 16:28, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

Sounds good for now. I'll waive the one month waiting period if you do revert some stuff in the next few weeks, fair? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:34, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

All right then. I'll try my best to look out for vandalism. Avengingbandit 16:42, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

OK, here's some other reverts: #4 and #5. Avengingbandit 17:06, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

And the final one is here [11]--Bandit 02:17, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Four and six are fine, but delete tags shouldn't be removed without discussion (unless they themselves are vandalism). Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 10:43, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Motion to suspend this RfR until further notice on the grounds that Bandit wants it far too much, and would make an otherwise poor Rollback'r. He is clearly not looking for Rollback to help him help the wiki, and is instead just fishing for power (suspicions are supported by frequent requests for voice and op on #sw). Also, the edits he describes as "reverting vandalism" above make me think he would use Rollback poorly were he given it. PenguinofDeath 10:55, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Since this has been up for over 3 months. What are we going to do with this request? Dots Ready for School 19:30, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Result: Failed All three reverts are the same thing basically, and user has said on IRC he doesn't much care right now. Toomai Glittershine The Honcho 21:03, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Qwerty

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Qwerty the lord 22:49, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Result: Failed You don't seem to understand the purpose of the rollback tool - none of these three edits are even arguably acceptable as usages of rollback. Toomai Glittershine The Incomperable 23:50, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

FirstaLasto

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ♡FirstaLasto♥ 14:17, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Hmmmm. 1 is easily good, but 2 and 3 I'm not so sure. In 2, it was a user's first edit changing "Deku Nut" to "Deku Seed" in only the origin section, both of which exist in the Zelda series and so could just be confusion. 3 was clearly false, but is a single edit (as in, the reversion hasn't been reverted) by an IP with good-faith history. Give me another two reverts of yours that are more applicable for rollback. Toomai Glittershine The Spectrum 14:26, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

• #4
• #5

How about those? For the latter one, the user re-added the information after their last edit was reverted (with an edit summary). ♡FirstaLasto♥ 14:56, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

4 is fine. 5 is on the fence; personally I would have only rollbacked the third time for a good-faith edit, though doing so on the second isn't necessarily wrong.

I'd like to give you one more chance to provide a revert that cannot be questioned as rollback material. I'm leaning towards passing this as-is, but having more evidence that you know how to properly use the tool will make it easier. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 09:24, 19 July 2014 (EDT)

Result: Failed The user in question has not edited in two months. Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 10:42, 16 October 2014 (EDT)