SmashWiki:Requests for rollback

This page documents an official SmashWiki policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

This page is for requesting that one is granted rollback powers on SmashWiki.

Rules

• Only self-nominations are allowed.
• All new nominees should copy and paste the following block of text onto the end of this page:

===YourUsername===
*[link1 #1]
*[link2 #2]
*[link3 #3]
([[Special:Contributions/YourUsername|contributions]]) ~~~~

• Then, edit the template as follows:
  • Replace "YourUsername" with your username.
  • Replace "link1", "link2", and "link3" with links to three of your edits that you believe could have been uses of rollback. Avoid using multiple edits that are related, for example three reverts of a single vandal within an hour. If you do not know how to link your edits here, see the below section.
  • Applications which do not follow this format may be cancelled by an admin or bureaucrat. The user in question may immediately apply again. A third incorrect application will result in you not being allowed to apply for a month.
• A bureaucrat will determine whether the edits you provided show understanding of the usage of rollback.
  • If all three examples would be correct uses of rollback, then the RfR will pass (barring some extenuating circumstance).
  • If all three examples would be bad/incorrect uses of rollback, the RfR will fail. The bureaucrat may then explain why the edits were not proper uses of rollback, though this is not required.
  • Otherwise, the bureaucrat may open minor discussion; maybe one example is unclear as to whether rollback is appropriate, and the user would be able to argue his/her case. Other users are allowed to voice their opinion. Discussion is to be kept to a minumum. This step is not required; a bureaucrat may pass or fail an RfR without needing discussion of incorrect rollback uses.
• No other users may comment unless the RfR has been opened for discussion.
• If your RfR fails, you may not make another one for a month (i.e. if it fails on the 15th, you must wait until the 15th of the next month to try again).
• If your rollback privileges are revoked for whatever reason, barring some extenuating circumstance (e.g. discussion elsewhere that results in consensus that said revoking was unnecessary), you must also wait a month before you may re-apply.
• You may not use the same example edit in two different (uncancelled) RfRs.

Linking to edits

There are two ways to link to an edit:

1. Go to your contributions (there is a link in the userbar at the top of the page, or go here). For the edit you want to link to, click on the "diff" link. Then copy what's in the address bar.
2. Go to a page's history. For the edit you want to link to, click on the "prev" link. Then copy what's in the address bar.
   • If you want to "select" multiple edits at once, you can use the options buttons to pick the range and then click the "Compare selected revisions" button.

Archives

For archives from the previous RfR format, see this page.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Current requests

NOTE: Please do not comment on current requests unless a bureaucrat has opened it for discussion.

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)

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)

BaconMaster

• #1
• #2
• #3

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