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 (2)

• #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)

Ganonmew

• #1
• #2
• And as dubious as it may be, #3

(contributions) Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 18:28, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

Personally I think #3 is fine. Dots (talk) The Charlie Brown 22:32, 16 November 2015 (EST)

Thanks, but I still feel shaky about it, as I also removed a link. Thanks for the approval however. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 08:11, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah I don't think #3 is rollback material, since it's the user's first ever edit and could easily have been a legitimate mistake. Can you provide something else to replace it? Toomai Glittershine The Polychromatic 09:12, 17 November 2015 (EST)

If I may, the user in question who made that edit was, in fact, a vandal, as they had made a spam page that was (soon after creation) taken down by OT. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 09:17, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Once I'm done with homework, I'll patrol to find something else. That user was certainly not a GF user however, per Aidan. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 12:37, 17 November 2015 (EST)

So I'd call #3 an "ehh..." than an X: first off, I don't think it's possible to make a mistake that big. Also that user is indeed in bad faith. Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 13:11, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Regardless, my buddy attacked me because I didn't let him get "revenge" on DatNuttyKid for undoing his needless edit on my userpage, so as much as I hate it...

#4 Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 21:23, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 22:57, 1 December 2015 (EST)

Drill Blaster Mark 2

• #1
• #2
• #3 (This looks a lot like trolling...)

(contributions) Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 22:57, 1 December 2015 (EST)

DatNuttyKid (2)

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:56, 9 December 2015 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 10:40, 20 December 2015 (EST)

Nintendofan1653

• 1

• 2

• 3

(Contributions) Nintendofan1653 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (EST)

I'm not Toomai, but I'd like to express my concern. 2 and 3 are obvious rollback cases. But I don't really like 1. I'd personally undo it instead of rollback, but I'd see why people would. Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 17:07, 10 December 2015 (EST)

i see your point but if i find me a better replacement (if toomai counts that a red) though Nintendofan1653 (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Result: ? Passed #1 is indeed not very good rollback material, but if someone were to rollback it I wouldn't really disagree. Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 10:40, 20 December 2015 (EST)

John3637881

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) John PK SMAAAASH!! 14:08, 2 January 2016 (EST)

#3 doesn't seem like they where blatantly vandalizing. I think that user just didn't really know how Wikis are supposed to work. -- Ethan (Discussion) 13:34, 13 January 2016 (EST)

Result: ? Passed #3 is dubious but I could see a case for it. Toomai Glittershine The Brazen 15:02, 13 January 2016 (EST)

Ethan7

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) -- Ethan(Discussion) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (EST)

i dont now about number 3, his other edits were good faith so maybe it was an accident? Poultry (talk) EZMONEY!! 17:51, 2 February 2016 (EST)

Result: ? Passed #3 could go either way, but rollback would be acceptable. Toomai Glittershine The Different 16:56, 5 February 2016 (EST)

Penro

• #1(This is me, see the IP's talk page for confirmation.)
• #2
• #3

(contribs.) Penro ...that's all. 11:58, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Number 2 is a bit on the edge but okay given the IP's history, but I don't like #3; it's a bit spammy for a talkpage, but not vandalism, and no one else had touched it for over a month before you undid it. You might want to come up with a better example. Toomai Glittershine The Spectrum 09:40, 21 February 2016 (EST)

i'm not penro but i think this might be a better example Poultry(talk) the fluffy 10:05, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Other users don't get to choose potential rollback edits. Toomai Glittershine The Polychromatic 11:06, 21 February 2016 (EST)

no, i was just suggesting that because that happened after he put up this RFR Poultry(talk) the Pumpkin Pie 14:56, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Here you go, Toomai. Penro ...that's all. 17:06, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Result: Passed #4 is okay only because of the page's history. Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 09:04, 22 February 2016 (EST)

BeepYou

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

(contributions) -- BeepYou, a user with no grammar at all :v (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Result: Passed I'm only making three marks here because your five examples were basically a total of three incidents. Toomai Glittershine The Pan-Galactic 09:36, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Unowninator

• 1
• 2
• 3

(contributions) Unowninator (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2016 (EST)

Your third example is basically the same as your first example; please provide something from a different vandal/page/time. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 09:36, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Oops, sorry. Does this count? 4 Unowninator (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Boss 15:35, 15 March 2016 (EDT)

BaconMaster

• #1
• #2
• #3
• #4
• #5

(contributions) BaconMaster 20:04, 10 March 2016 (EST)

I don't like number 3 because it's an uninformed vote attempt in Smash Arena by a user of no other contributions. Do you have a better example? Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 15:32, 15 March 2016 (EDT)

Not yet, but I should be able to get another one before too long. BaconMasterLuck o' the Irish 15:42, 15 March 2016 (EDT)

Well, how are these ones, boss? BaconMaster 14:16, 26 March 2016 (EDT)

Result: ? Passed #2 is on the fence but I'd say is acceptable. Toomai Glittershine The Prismatic 23:35, 27 March 2016 (EDT)

Black Vulpine

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) Black Vulpine (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

Result: Passed Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 10:33, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

Queen Junko

• #1
• #2
• #3

(contributions) -- Her Majesty, Queen Junko, 17:54, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Result: Passed I was on the fence for #3 until I looked at the user's contributions, and that sealed the deal. Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 06:32, 27 June 2017 (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)

RobSir_zx

• #1
• #2
• #3
• #4
• #5

(contributions) RobSir zx 01:13, 29 February 2016 (EST)

Your 1 and 2 are fine, but your 3 added something in addition to the revert (with a good edit summary reason), and I can't see what your 4 is a revert of. I'm going to need two more examples of potential rollback edits if you want to show you know what's a good one. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 09:36, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Alright, so I just added 5 and tweaked 4, although the latter is a bad example anyway. Pretty much a standard edit. The prior would be perfect with RB since there were two intermediate edits. RobSir zx 17:13, 3 March 2016 (EST)

5 is good faith again Poultry(talk) the Pumpkin Pie 11:10, 5 March 2016 (EST)

Result: Failed I get the feeling your grasp on the principles of rollback is a bit slippery, or maybe that you're just providing the most borderline examples (when you should probably be providing the most obvious instead). Your 1 and 2 are still fine, but 3, 4, and 5 are dubious at best for the "undo without explanation" tool. You're close, but not yet over the hump. In that vein, if you wish to try again, you may do so a month after your last example (the 3rd) instead of a month after this resolution (the 15th). Toomai Glittershine The Boss 15:35, 15 March 2016 (EDT)

Falcon-X

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

(contributions) -- Falconian Leader (Enter the Leader's Office) 7:57, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Result: Failed It is clear you do not understand the nature of rollback; none of these edits of yours could have (nor should have) been executed with the tool. Toomai Glittershine The Boss 15:35, 15 March 2016 (EDT)

BSTIK

• #1
• #2
• #3
• #4

(contributions) BSTIK (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

#1 is fine, but the other two are not obvious vandalism: one needs to do research (or have previous knowledge of narrow subject matter) to know whether the information added/changed is true or not (since the users in question have no history to compare with), and an edit summary is useful in such cases. How about you provide an extra two potential rollback edits. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 09:57, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

#4 was the only other possible edit I could find but I feel as if it was good faith and not someone with bad intent (EDIT: Just found the user was blocked for making that edit so you should ignore the part about it being good faith). Every other undo I did was from people removing results, again on what seems to be good intent BSTIK (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2017 (EDT)

Yeah I can't say I'm impressed with this RfR as a whole. Rollback is for reverting vandalism no questions asked without requiring much more than basic knowledge - and while #4 may fit this description, it's also an edit by a one-shot IP that could be construed as misguided good faith. So I can't say you pass the rollback requirements right now.

Result: ? Failed Toomai Glittershine The Orchestral 10:43, 28 May 2017 (EDT)