SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Archive 3
This is an archive of rollback requests in chronological order.
So it's been a month since my m̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶i̶l̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶. I'm hoping this request irons out the issues that were present last time.
- Result: Passed #1 and #2 were probably the same guy in the same timeframe but I think they're different enough to count separately. Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 06:33, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
- Result: Passed #1 is meh in a vacuum but a look at history shows the user already made a mess on the same page, so it's good. Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 20:48, 2 July 2017 (EDT)
- Result: Passed While the usage of edit summaries helps for these reverts, if someone were to have used rollback it wouldn't have been a problem. Toomai Glittershine The Resolute 06:28, 20 July 2017 (EDT)
If I may add something, there were several edits by another vandal I just did that could've been done with rollback. Leave a message if needed 13:27, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
- You need to have examples from more than just one user. All 3 of these are valid but because they are all from the same user, I can't pass this.
14:14, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
- Fixed up a bit, and also included some vandalism I reverted long ago. Leave a message if needed 14:18, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
- Result: Passed 14:24, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
First time trying for rollback, I hope it works.
- #1 - Memoryman coming back.
- #2 - There were edits in between, although that was before I realized what was going on.
- #3 - Self-explanatory.
- #4 - Obvious vandalism, especially since he cleared parts of the page after this.
- Also, I won't be online until the next day, so please don't fail me if I don't respond. SugarCookie420 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2019 (EST)
- Your first link isn't vandalism per say, but given the user's checkered past, I'll accept it. Your second example is not a valid use of rollback because it requires an edit summary, and I would also be willing to assume good faith. It's very possible that the edit was just a mistake (could be a different tournament, but ended up editing the wrong article). That said I am passing this.
- Result: Passed 22:54, 20 January 2019 (EST)
- Your first example isn't really vandalism, it could easily just be a good faith user with a not-reliable source, or their own fan name. Either way, a revert is good, rollback would be questionable. That said...
- Result: Passed 22:54, 20 January 2019 (EST)
- Result: Passed 14:06, March 13, 2019 (EDT)
(contributions) 11:48, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
- Result: Passed 18:44, April 10, 2019 (EDT)
- Result: Passed #2 and #3 were the same vandal in the same timeframe, but the edits are different types of vandalism so I think it's okay. Toomai Glittershine The Rainbow 06:37, August 29, 2019 (EDT)
- Result: Passed 21:05, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
- Result: Passed (though the fact you linked to a "MobileDiff" page instead of the correct one concerns me) Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 06:45, March 5, 2020 (EST)
- Result: Passed #3 can be a little iffy in some cases of rankings, but since the SSBBRank is a static rank from three years ago, it can easily be deduced as blatantly false info. Disaster Flare (talk) 19:12, May 3, 2020 (EDT)
- I am going to give you a pass on the first and third examples because, although they aren't blatant vandalism, a minimal amount of research is necessary to conclude that they are false information. The second one is not a valid use of rollback because it debates notability, which can be subjective. A general rule of thumb is that if you need an edit summary (as you did for that), you should not use rollback. Are you able to provide one more example to supplement this RfR?
11:33, January 18, 2021 (EST)
- I can provide another example: #4. The user here is reversing the 1st and 2nd for Apex 2013. I reverted the edits to display the correct results. MemeDedede (talk) 11:54, January 18, 2021 (EST)
- The same occurs in Apex 2014: #5. In more recent contributions, I have decided not to use summaries for my edits. MemeDedede (talk) 11:55, January 18, 2021 (EST)
- Result: Passed 12:08, January 18, 2021 (EST)
- #1 User is new and I'm tired of having to click through all of his edits after reviews. He had an issue earlier of providing a tier list edit with no notes provided. I have a suspicion that he will continue to do this and I want to maintain the integrity of previous edits made.
- #2 I remember there was an incident regarding IP changes based on whoever thinks is personally rated as "Professional" that started a debate that needed quite a few undoing. As well as the best in the "world" vs "America" should've been compressed as another incident on the smasher page.
- #3 I believe this incident could've been reverted after a lot of vandalism and personal attack occurred during these edits.
- I was wondering. What were some of the edits you were going to pointed out for #1 and #3? MHStarCraft 11:20, 30 January 2018 (EST)
- While he's not suppose to comment on these, Starcraft is right, I need something more specific for #1 and #3. Also please note that you have to be the one who did the revert, not someone else, which makes your #2 example invalid. 12:20, 30 January 2018 (EST)
- Ah I guess for now I'll have to find something more substantial to support my claims in the future. For now I'll take the penalty and defer my request for rollback til I find something more concrete. Thank you for your time. Lv20ninja (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2018 (EST)
- Result: Failed #1 and #3 were nonspecific examples, and #2 was not performed by the user 10:46, 31 January 2018 (EST)
- Result: Failed. Learn to follow directions. 15:04, July 4, 2019 (EDT)
- These are borderline at best. Provide another 3 that are more in the spirit of clear, unquestionable uses of rollback. Toomai Glittershine The Victorious 07:59, July 5, 2019 (EDT)
- Result: Failed. Given examples are too borderline to show understanding of the rollback tool. Toomai Glittershine The Obfuscating 08:29, July 6, 2019 (EDT)
- #2 and #2 continued Included 2 links because I edited the page on the assumption it was a good faith edit, before later noticing the obvious vandalism. The 2nd link is the one where I remove the vandalism.