SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/KoRoBeNiKi

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)