SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 1 (view source)

Revision as of 15:23, March 5, 2023

20,829 bytes added , 1 year ago

m

Text replacement - "w:c:wow:User:Sky2042" to "User:Sky2042"

PorpleBot

Bots, Developers

58,359

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{archive}}
 __TOC__
@@ Line 108: / Line 109: @@
 :::Well, look at it like this. Admins already have the power to shut RfR's, in fact, any user can, as long as it is for a valid reason. For example, I think it was Pikamander who shut KP's third attempt, even though he wasn't an admin. Miles closed Oxico's recently, so if we can't get Angela to change the function, we can make a system that allows admins to pass rollback, archive it, then contact CHawk so he can promote without having to make the decision himself. The alternative is to promote another bureacrat, but I don't think that's necessary. '''[[User:Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:green">Toon</span> <span style="color:purple">Ganondorf</span>]]   [[User Talk:Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:Gold">(t</span>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:Gold">c)</span>]]'''
-::::Or you guys could take chill pills. :) The wiki isn't going anywhere anytime soon, though if you think something is dragging, go drag CHawk into it. :) --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
+::::Or you guys could take chill pills. :) The wiki isn't going anywhere anytime soon, though if you think something is dragging, go drag CHawk into it. :) --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 :::::What is that supposed to mean? We're trying to lessen Aaron's load, not make more work for him. '''[[User:Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:green">Toon</span> <span style="color:purple">Ganondorf</span>]]   [[User Talk:Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:Gold">(t</span>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Toon Ganondorf|<span style="color:Gold">c)</span>]]'''
@@ Line 133: / Line 134: @@
 Thoughts? [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="firebrick"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] <font color="lightcoral">([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="lightcoral">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
-:Feel free to make the necessary change for the first. Ambivalent toward the third. The second: Rollback isn't a promotion; only a tool granted to those who need it. That we have a full process for it is silly, but it satisfies those who want the whole "PLEASE SUPPORT ME BECUZ IT MAEKS ME FEEL GUD!" :). --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
+:Feel free to make the necessary change for the first. Ambivalent toward the third. The second: Rollback isn't a promotion; only a tool granted to those who need it. That we have a full process for it is silly, but it satisfies those who want the whole "PLEASE SUPPORT ME BECUZ IT MAEKS ME FEEL GUD!" :). --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 == Hey, ==
@@ Line 170: / Line 171: @@
 '''Support''' Every user may have some slip-ups with this (I know I did), but I think they'll quickly learn how to use the tool properly. -[[User:Ivy73|<span style="color:forestgreen">Ivy</span>]][[User talk:Ivy73|<span style="color:blue">73</span>]][[File:002MS.png]] 22:03, 31 January 2011 (EST)
+'''Support''' having requests for rollback granting rollback rights, but not having RfRs (see Omega's comment below) - I agree that it is a tool that may not be as helpful as it is on, say, Wikipedia, but it does still come in handy in the rarer cases where one finds themselves staring at vandalism here. I agree with Miles that if someone doesn't want more users with rollback privileges at a certain time, that they can express their opposition at a RfR. I don't find the chance of misused rollbacking to be high, as hopefully, the process of RfR would stop any abusers and people with a lack of experience. Accidents, however, definitely do happen - I've accidentally clicked the rollback button one too many times on Wikipedia. But mistakes are just as easily fixable as they are done, so I feel that the accidents don't outweigh giving users rollback privileges. <b>~<i>[[User:SuperHamster|<font color="#07517C">Super</font>]]</i>[[User:SuperHamster|<font color="#6FA23B">Hamster</font>]]</b> <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]]</small> 22:05, 31 January 2011 (EST)
+:I have changed my standpoint to one similar to Omega's below. I support handing out rollback rights, but oppose holding discussions for them. Rather, I would like to see a system where a user can simply request the rollback ability on the same page as before, and a bureaucrat will simply deny or accept the request - no discussion involved. <b>~<i>[[User:SuperHamster|<font color="#07517C">Super</font>]]</i>[[User:SuperHamster|<font color="#6FA23B">Hamster</font>]]</b> <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]]</small> 15:27, 2 February 2011 (EST)
+'''Support''' - Right now I have the same opinion as SuperHamster, altough accidents could happen with the rollback, they can be fixed and they don´t outweight the positive things that the rollback grants. [[User:Zero|Zero]] ([[User talk:Zero|talk]]) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (EST)
+Alright, after thinking this through, I '''support''' allowing standard users to have access to the rollback tool. While I'll admit that the potential for abuse is higher than the overall benefit of allowing a user to use it, I believe that potential for abuse diminishes with trusted users that abide by the policies and guidelines of SmashWiki. And while mostly a minor convenience for the average user, the rollback tool can be pretty useful in reverting vandalism for those with poor connections.
+Now while I do support giving rollback to standard users, I '''oppose''' reinstating Requests for Rollback as the process of obtaining the rollback tool. As for Emmett's primary reason for opposing the process of RfRs, and as you can see in previous discussions on this talk page, RfRs were often blown out of proportion. Despite the rollback tool not being important, and as mentioned before, being mostly a minor convenience when reverting vandalism, the requests for them often resembled RfAs, with all the Wiki drama and unnecessarily large debates, for something so minor. As such, to obtain rollback, a simple request to a bureaucrat with a summary of why you think rollback would benefit you should be sufficient enough to obtain it. I believe our bureaucrats are trusted enough to decide who should and who shouldn't have rollback on their own. Plus, by getting rid of RfRs in favor of direct requests to a bureaucrat, the process becomes more efficient and less effects the usual daily flow of the Wiki. And as always, if a user disagrees with a bureaucrat's decision to give rollback to a user, they can always bring it up to the bureaucrat and present why they believe the bureaucrat made a mistake with their decision. Or if it's the bureaucrat who is unsure whether or not to give a requesting user access to rollback, they can always ask other users what they think about it.
+So in conclusion, I '''support''' allowing standard users having access to rollback, but '''oppose''' having Requests for Rollback as the process of obtaining rollback in favor of direct requests to a bureaucrat. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 11:52, 1 February 2011 (EST)
+Bump. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:03, 2 February 2011 (EST)
+:After reading your comment, I've decided that I agree with you, except for one point - instead of approaching a specific bureaucrat, I'd rather see users ask for rollback on the same page as before. A random bureaucrat will review the request and either accept or deny it. Now that I think of it, that's also how Wikipedia grants rollback. <b>~<i>[[User:SuperHamster|<font color="#07517C">Super</font>]]</i>[[User:SuperHamster|<font color="#6FA23B">Hamster</font>]]</b> <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]]</small> 15:27, 2 February 2011 (EST)
+I '''support''' allowing standard users to have Rollback, but I am '''opposed''' to RfRs due to the same reasons Omega stated above. [[User:Unknown the Hedgehog|<font color="#FF0000">Unknown </font>]] [[User talk:Unknown the Hedgehog|<font color="#780000">the </font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Unknown the Hedgehog|<font color="#000000">Hedgehog</font>]] 18:25, 2 February 2011 (EST)
+==New RfR concept==
+Alright, so after a bit of thinking I think I have a new system for distributing rollback.
+#The user who desires rollback posts the following information on the RfR page:
+#*Their username and a link to their contributions.
+#*Three of their edits they think could have been uses of rollback.
+#A bureaucrat looks at the information and decides whether the user properly understands rollback.
+#*If all three examples would be correct uses of rollback, the request should be granted (barring some extenuating circumstance).
+#*If all three examples would be bad/incorrect uses of rollback, the request should be denied. The bureaucrat may then explain why the edits were not proper uses of rollback.
+#*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 case. Other users might be allowed to voice their opinion. Discussion should be kept to a minumum, maybe only a few sentences allowed per bystander.
+#There should be a minimum account age for rollback, though not very high (say two or three weeks).
+#There should also be a delay of about a month before a user who failed the first time can try again. It may be necessary to disallow using the same undo examples in multiple RfRs.
+#Block history should have no effect on getting rollback, unless there are blocks for edit warring. This would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
+The main hurdle to getting rollback then becomes twofold - you have to know exactly when to use it, and you have to be wiki-proficient enough to know how to post a link to an edit (i.e. use the history, check the differences, and copy the URL). There should be a small guide on how to do so on the RfR page, but to be honest if you don't understand how to use history and diffs you probably don't undo many edits in the first place.
+I also think there should be some laid-out criteria for losing rollback. Even something as simple as "if you edit war with it after being warned about such" or "if an admin believes you have been misusing rollback after a warning". Users who lose rollback would have something like one or two months before they could apply again.
+So, what think? Good replacement to the bogged-down public review system, or would people still like a simple ask-a-bcrat better? Many parts of the concept can be tweaked a bit, but the general idea is that you have to show proof that you know when to use rollback. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Celeritous 18:13, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
+:It looks good, though for some specific things;
+:*I don't think a minimum account age is necessary, there's none for RfAs/RfBs, and a user could prove themselves in a timeframe smaller than the minimum account age (especially if said user is an established capable user on other Wikis).
+:*For the discussions should they occur, while ideally should be kept to a minimum, limiting the size of each user's posts should not be necessary.
+:*A month seems to be alright for a time frame that must pass after a failed RfR or removal of rollback (except in a case of the latter where another bureaucrat believes the user had their rollback powers removed under unjustified circumstances after thorough discussion with the bureaucrat who did the removal, in which case this delay to have the rollback powers restored shouldn't apply).
+:For the criteria of losing rollback "You are expected to use this additional privilege responsibly. Failure to do so will result in a warning, and should you continue misuse of Rollback after being warned from another user, your Rollback privileges will be revoked. Rollback should only be used on edits that are obvious vandalism and spam. Using Rollback on other edits that are good faith, especially during an edit war, constitutes as misuse, and continued misuse will result in your Rollback privileges being revoked."
+:Also, what about users that had rollback on the SmashWikia? Should they be given Rollback automatically, or should they have to reapply through this RfR process? I think they should reapply, especially since a notable amount of them misused rollback. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 19:16, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
+::Yeah, minimum account age was something I was unsure about too. I was thinking about putting in an exception line something like "exceptions may be made for users who are clearly wiki-capable from the outset" but of course that's nebulous. I was also unsure about the artificla discussion limit, but it seemed like a good idea to force discussions to be minimal; it can probably be removed with no problem.
+::Yes, that losing criteria is worded well, and rollback should be re-applied for. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Celeritous 23:59, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
+:It's a pretty good idea, though I don't see anything wrong for the old system.[[User:T.testLP|T.testLP]]<small>[[User Talk:T.testLP|The Communicator]]|[[Special:Contributions/T.testLP|The...Whatever]][[File:GanondorfHead.png|20px]]Ganondorf da bess!</small> 02:23, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
+::Problem was, it was too much for something so little. Rollback is something that is minor, yet the RfR process turned into people campaigning for it. Go take a look at previous RfRs, and you'll see. We don't need a RfA type process for rollback. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 03:27, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
+Well, I'd kind of like to get this implemented soon if no one has a problem with it. How about Monday (the 21st)? [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Wacko 19:05, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
+:I say implement it now, no need to delay when sufficient time has passed and no one is speaking in opposition. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 10:58, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
+There is not much spamming going on so perhaps you should save it for a more important time, but im no admin or buerocrat so, im fine eather way--[[User:kyle.b|<span style="color: blue;">'''kyle.b'''</span>]] [[User talk:kyle.b|''<span style="color:blue;">talk</span>'']] [[Image:KirbyHeadSSBB.png|20px]] 11:23, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
+:The matter of if there is no frequent vandalism/spamming is irrelevant to whether Toomai's proposed system is more desirable than the system we had before, which is what this discussion is based on. Also, you don't need to be an admin or bureaucrat to take part in these discussions, though your comment will have to be relevant to the discussion for it to be taken into consideration. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 12:08, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
+Alright I'm going to implement this now. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Undirigible 11:29, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
+== The three required links ==
+Shouldn't they be from separate vandal incidents? Someone being around one time during a mass vandal attack from one user could give them plenty of reverts, but not necessarily show they should have rollback. Perhaps that was the first time the user ever done some reverting, or they are a mostly inactive user who was just on at that time. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 20:30, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
+:Seeing rare vandal attacks are these days, I don't know if I support this. If vandalism was more common then I certainly would. '''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=red>Ƌ<font color=#DC0000>o<font color=#A50000>ӄ<font color=#6E0000>ԏ<font color=#370000>o<font color=black>яΠ</font>ɛ</font>ə</font>и</font>9</font>9</font>]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<sub>{ROLLBACKER}</sub>]] 10:44, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+::Agreeing with the above. [[User:Mr. Anon|Mr. Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr. Anon|talk]]) 13:38, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+:::Even if vandal attacks are scarce, what I said still holds true, and we shouldn't allow rollback to be instantly obtainable because a vandal came along that vandalised multiple pages. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 13:52, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+::::Agree. <font face="Forte">[[User:BlindColours|<font color="#FFA500">Blin</font>]][[User talk:BlindColours|<font color="#00FFFF">dcol</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BlindColours|<font color="#00FF00">ours</font>]]</font> ''Stop smiling, it makes me happy.'' 14:42, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+::::<small>edit conflict</small> @OT: Yes we should, in case we have an army of vandals that come along. Vandalism is very scarce, but when it comes, it comes in large amounts, so 1) if we implement your proposal rollback would be nearly impossible to attain, and we wouldn't have the rollbackers to deal with the mass vandalism we have every once in awhile. '''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=red>Ƌ<font color=#DC0000>o<font color=#A50000>ӄ<font color=#6E0000>ԏ<font color=#370000>o<font color=black>яΠ</font>ɛ</font>ə</font>и</font>9</font>9</font>]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<sub>{ROLLBACKER}</sub>]] 14:45, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+:::::some users that deserves rollback sometimes didnt get them just because they're offline? [[User:Lucasthefourth|<span style="color:red">(°(..)°)'''Lucas'''</span>]][[User talk:Lucasthefourth|'''-IV-''']] [[Special:Contributions/Lucasthefourth|'''Pigs''']][[Image:Lucas alive.PNG|25px]] 15:02, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+::::::What? <font face="Forte">[[User:BlindColours|<font color="#FFA500">Blin</font>]][[User talk:BlindColours|<font color="#00FFFF">dcol</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BlindColours|<font color="#00FF00">ours</font>]]</font> ''Stop smiling, it makes me happy.'' 15:02, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+:::::::sorry, it's midnight here, my brain didnt work well... I mean yeah I agree [[User:Lucasthefourth|<span style="color:red">(°(..)°)'''Lucas'''</span>]][[User talk:Lucasthefourth|'''-IV-''']] [[Special:Contributions/Lucasthefourth|'''Pigs''']][[Image:Lucas alive.PNG|25px]] 15:06, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+:::::A glaring flaw in the current set up shouldn't be handwaved just so rollback can be easier to obtain, which allows it to be obtained by users who haven't proven they would have a use for it or understand how to use it properly. The amount of vandalism is completely irrelevant to this. And your example is flawed; regardless of if users have rollback or not, they can still revert any vandalism that comes along. If this "army of vandals" came along, users could still revert their edits if they don't have rollback. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:15, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+::::::I guess I agree with OmegaTyrant then. [[User:Mr. Anon|Mr. Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr. Anon|talk]]) 15:45, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+Not to detract from RoyboyX's RfR, but in his RfR, his links to support him were [http://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=User:Megatron1&curid=14&diff=377988&oldid=377987 this], [http://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=User:Megatron1&curid=14&diff=377989&oldid=377988 this], and [http://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=User:Megatron1&curid=14&diff=377991&oldid=377990 this]. It was essentially the same revert multiplied three times. Does reverting the same vandal edit three times in short succession really show an understanding when rollback should be used, and that user would make sufficient use of rollback in general?
+With the current RfR setup though, this was considered enough, when in reality it isn't. Plus, with the current setup, one single massive vandal attack (such as another attack from Poopy), and everyone online at the time would suddenly be able to obtain rollback, regardless of how active they actually are at reverting vandalism. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:50, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+I'll also like to point out, we currently have 10 active users with access to rollback (with some more users who had more than enough reverts in the past that they could obtain it if they apply, such as HavocReaper). So it's not like we have a severe lack of users with rollback to justify making it easier to obtain. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:56, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
+:You win. '''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=red>Ƌ<font color=#DC0000>o<font color=#A50000>ӄ<font color=#6E0000>ԏ<font color=#370000>o<font color=black>яΠ</font>ɛ</font>ə</font>и</font>9</font>9</font>]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<sub>{ROLLBACKER}</sub>]] 00:18, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
+== A question ==
+. "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."
+. "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)."
+This has always bugged me. Is this just an error, or is there something I'm missing? ''[[User:ReiDemon|Rei]]'''''[[User_talk:ReiDemon|Demon]]''' 08:57, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
+:The first thing is saying, if you make your RfR incorrectly (such as not replacing YourUsername with your user name), it would be cancelled, but not failed. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 09:31, 12 September 2011 (EDT)