SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/ParaGoomba348

Result: User has almost no reverts and occasionally contributes stuff that's boderline bad faith edits, so no. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ParaGoomba348

Okay, here I go again. I have the skill. I am an admin or close to an admin on some wiki's. I've returned.

Votes/Comments

• Oppose. no real reasons yet, and often throws fits that occasionally include vandalism. Xtrme Enter 2009 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a vandal, X. ACOFL 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Slight Support Moody, but active. I'm wondering what happened to your other proposal... Blue Ninjakoopa 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Changed my vote because I was still in the mind of "friends deserve rollback". His reverts are low and he's constantly leaving/returning to SW. He's not very active either. Blue Ninjakoopa^Talk 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "You're active, and you're not a vandal. IMO, those are the only things that matter." Just so you know, there is no apostrophe in wikis. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Slight oppose What DE said last time.Smoreking 2009 is coming! 02:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Essentially what I said last time. A second look at at your contributions revealed that among your last 500 contributions you've only got a single single revert (not including two self-reverts). There's simply no evidence that you have any need of rollback, nor that you would put it to any use. – Defiant Elements +talk 04:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support He's active, not a vandal, and enthusiastic. He does get moody, but giving him rollback is safe. We need more vandal fighters. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 05:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support:Per Cheezperson. Besides, I think a VERY popular vandal target should have more vandal-fighting power, don't you think?Silvie (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• SupportHe's a good guy, and what's more, he's a vandal target. ROllback will really help him, and he would do well with it, I'm sure. Toon Ganondorf (t c)

I'm glad TG brought that up. A number of the vandals we get here take the names of "IHAETPARAGOOMBA348" or something like that. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 05:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I don't see how that's relevant. The fact is that, despite those vandals, he hasn't been reverting vandalism, so why should it have any bearing on his RfR? – Defiant Elements +talk 05:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DE (O.o). Cheezperson, we aren't building an army. Basically, you said that anyone can request rollback so long as they're active, which is not the case (though I've said otherwise before). Blue Ninjakoopa 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback#Reasons please. SZL's got a point.Smoreking 2009 is coming! 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BNK is against me because he dislikes me. If someone could give me 3 examples of this user starting an edit war in the past month, I will change my vote. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

lol I LOVE you, I just like messing with your head. I'm not saying you shouldn't support him, I'm just saying you should find another reason than "We need more vandal fighters". What is this, Star Wars? Blue Ninjakoopa 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Slight Support Very active, but more reverts would boost this bid for rollback. Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Pikamander2. Masterman 2009 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. The "leaving"/"returning" constantly ruins much of the positive reputation you'd earned in my perspective. Miles (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same as SZL. Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy}
• Oppose He's had three(?) RfR's and kept apparently "leaving SmashWiki forever" only to return a few days later. He can be a tad moody, as stated above, and he lacks many reverts. And no, having vandals named after him does not mean he deserves rollback, he's never even on when the vandals are.UP/T/O 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)