SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Semicolon

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Result: Granted rollback. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I should get rollback because I've been an active member/contributor on the wiki for approximately a year. For an example of some of my more outstanding contributions, I single-handedly finished the character attributes section standardization, and I authored the newly adopted policy: SmashWiki:Notability. I have on many occasions reverted vandalism, and I take a role in improving the wiki. Also, I can spell. Semicolon (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Neutral Although your prominent editing style is not reverting, you still have a few reverts, and you're fairly active, but I'd like to see some more reverts.SZL.pngUP/T/O 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. You do some really dumb shit, but you would put these tools to good use... Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral. You have a total of 589 contributions going back to April 2008. Of those 589 contributions, you have, as far as I can tell (feel free to correct me if I missed something), a grand total of 4 reverts. That you're an active and well-established member of the community is all well and good, and I don't think you'd misuse rollback, but I also see no reason to warrant your having it. Rollback isn't a reward for having been a good, or even an outstanding, contributor, it's about fighting vandalism, and you simply haven't done very much of that. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Fighting vandalism involves 2 things: actually undoing vandalism, and tagging pages that are joke/vandal pages. My contributions are far more in the second category. I often find that in my attempts to revert vandalism, I am 'beaten-to-the-punch' so to speak by those with rollback. In the end, considering your views on rollback, I understand your hesitance to support my RfR, but if you took the time to investigate the second category, you would find your claim that I do not fight vandalism to be false. Semicolon (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that what you say is true, but the fact remains that rollback would in no way, shape, and/or form aid you in tagging joke/vandal pages so I'm not quite sure what to make of your argument. That said, I think "neutral" more correctly assesses my views on this RfR, so I'm changing my vote accordingly. – Defiant Elements +talk 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"'s about fighting vandalism, and you simply haven't done very much of that." That was the statement I was assailing, which was basically the core of your argument. Semicolon (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, touche. Allow me to rephrase: Rollback is about reverting vandalism, and you simply haven't done very much of that. – Defiant Elements +talk 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the harm? "Handsome" Hollywood K. 01:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I truly dislike the notion of a system of user rights management based on a "why not?/what's the harm?" rationale. Theoretically, for each quasi-active individual to whom you grant rollback rights, counter-vandal response time will improve by some variable amount. Similarly, most users wouldn't actually abuse rollback; there is a far greater likelihood that they simply wouldn't use it at all. So, by a "what's the harm?" rationale, we should be handing out rollback privileges to every user who's demonstrated that they're not a vandal, regardless of activity, number of reverts, or any other criteria. That being the case, I'm not going to support an RfA/RfR unless the candidate can demonstrate an actual need. – Defiant Elements +talk 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As much as I don't like you, there... Really isn't a arguing with your edits. "Handsome" Hollywood K. 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral Although he is an active user he does not seem to be around as often as some of the users. His edits have also been miniscule in comparison to some of the other user's contributions. Zmario 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually read any of his contributions or did you just look at editcount tbh --Shadowcrest 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's examine the exquisite irony here for a moment. Your last content-ful edit to this wiki was...January 2nd. Your last appearance before this was practically a month ago. I've made sure that my mainspace edits have always been quality. The number is smaller for the very reason that I work to cleanup entire articles in a single edit, rather than a very large number of smaller edits. You can't look at the number to make a judgment in my case. In yours, however...Semicolon (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Who were you talking about ;? And secondly, on certain wiki's, everyone DOES get rollback privlidges if they are proven not to be a vandal. Not saying that's the best solution, but... Yeah... "Handsome" Hollywood K. 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Listen Semicolon, i dont think you should get Rollback becuase you need to make more contributions that are worthwhile and not some petty edits. Quality over Quantity. Zmario
I suggest you go read the 2 10kb posts semicolon posted on 1 topic within the past week before continuing further --Shadowcrest 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Zmario, then reasonably you can't oppose me on those grounds either. Also, I'm around here every single day. You aren't. Semicolon (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
@Kperfect: That's nice... On some wikis people are banned for being typical liberal morons (well... really only one of which I know, but you get the point). To be perfectly honest, I'd rather we give everyone (meaning all non-vandals) rollback than have RfRs on which people are voting based on the sole criterion of "why not?" That said, I'd still say that it would be a poor idea since, on balance, the increased number of abuses perpetrated with rollback (if we were to give essentially everyone rollback, the absolute number of such abuses would undoubtedly increase) would far outweigh whatever small potential increase in counter-vandal response time would be derived from giving most users rollback (most users would use rollback only rarely, besides which, there's really no benefit in having 30 rollback'rs watching RCs at any given time relative to having, say, 3 rollback'rs -- for all intents and purposes, the vandalism would be reverted in the same amount of time). – Defiant Elements +talk 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just... Think. Really? "Handsome" Hollywood K. 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
... – Defiant Elements +talk 01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yo, chill! Zdogg went neutral! Stop being so mean to him. (Directed to all of you). Blue NinjakoopaTalk 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
...why?SZL.pngUP/T/O 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You know why. It is extremely obvious. Toon Ganondorf (t c)
  • Oppose - You've got barely any reverts. Blue NinjakoopaTalk 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakest support ever - Ahh, what the hell? Everyone else seems positive about this. All opinions aside, you're active enough to utilize this tool. Blue NinjakoopaTalk 07:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: While your reverts are low in number, you do enough cleanup work t merit these tools. GutripperSpeak
  • Slight Support. Low revert count, but a solid history of janitorial work leads me to believe he would effectively fight vandalism with this tool. Miles (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Slight Support Great asset to this wiki-janitorial work, cleaning up pages, solving disputes... but low number of reverts. Nevertheless, I will still support. Friedbeef1 1/26/09! 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You can't clean up a page with rollback, Fried Beef. Blue NinjakoopaTalk 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I know... I'm just listing Semicolon's positive contributions to this wiki. Friedbeef1 1/26/09! 02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Positive? LAWL. Blue NinjakoopaTalk 02:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — User can spell. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, Sky, not you too! XD Blue NinjakoopaTalk 03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
BNK, of all people, you know Semi's right :P Friedbeef1 1/26/09! 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)