User talk:Emmett/Archive 2

Archive

---

SmashWikia

User:Shadowcrest

Is this an impostor or did you register two accounts? --Porplemontage 17:16, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

They are both me. I didn't want anyone registering SC to impersonate me, but on other wikis I've switched to Emmett (but couldn't because it was already registered on wikia). Emmett 17:33, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Ok. --Porplemontage 17:34, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

(Confirmation that I have both accounts) Shadowcrest 17:38, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

It'll be hard getting used to calling you Emmett, since I've known you as Shadowcrest for so long D: Mr. Anon 00:54, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

You're still welcome to call me either :p Emmett 11:06, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Rollback

So if you want to require admins to rerequest, what about Rollbackers? Or wait you don't even support having an RfR policy. Can we even set users to just have Rollback? If you look here, there is no rollback option, but there is an added "Patrolman" option. I'm in no hurry to have these questions answered; it's just something I want you to keep in the back of your mind and eventually discuss with Clarinet Hawk (if and when he comes over) and the other sysops. Dr. Pain 99 09:13, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

I'm going to work with NIWA to see what's going on. Not sure to what extent we can edit groups, but I'll try. Emmett 11:06, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Policy opinions

Elaborate on your sentiments of the policies mentioned on your userpage please. Toomai 12:22, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Do you mean the general idea, or each specific policy that I mentioned? Emmett 14:00, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The specifics; I can understand the general idea of "we're kind of starting over, we might as well have a look at everything". {{SUBST:User:Toomai/sig}} 14:18, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Ban/Del/Prot policies are stupid. As is a vandalism policy. I expect sysops to know what the tools are and I expect them not to need a policy to dictate when (not) to use the tools.

RfR: unnecessary bureaucracy and waste of time. (Honestly I'm not even sure having a rollback usergroup is worth the trouble-- people on SmashWikia abused it all the time.) If we decide to have a group of rollbackers, they can just ask a bureaucrat for the tools-- there's really no reason to open a formal red-tapey process for something that is so pointless. Bias is not an issue because even if bias was present (which I generally think myself and C.Hawk can avoid), it's rollback so what does it really matter?

RfB: This is again something that I think could just be decided by the bureaucrats on a "do we need another one, and if so who's good for the job" basis. Most users don't really interact with bureaucrats (as bureaucrats anyway) and often don't really understand what the job entails, making RfBs just a prop to appease the crowd. I think the bureaucrats can be trusted to find other good bureaucrats for the job. This one is probably controversial and I won't be too surprised if consensus wants to keep RfBs anyway, but I personally don't see a need.

I'll get around to writing drafts of the tweak category sometime soon. Emmett 19:14, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

We maybe can use that weird "patroller" user group for users who want to revert vandalism, but don't necessarily need sysop rights. It seems unnecessary to me, but if the vandalism gets bad we can implement an "RfP" policy or something. Dr. Pain 99 19:26, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with not having Ban/Del/Prot policies for the reasons you stated and not having a RfR to acquire Rollback. Although, I think we should still have rollbackers as in my experience, I saw rollback get used properly more often than not (though I have saw misuse of rollback more than I should have). As for the RfBs, I think community input would be important in deciding a new bureaucrat. As such, I think RfBs should be kept to see if the community trusts the candidate as a bureaucrat and just like on a RfA, supports and opposes for irrelevant/blind reasons can always be ignored by the deciding bureaucrat. Omega Tyrant 19:46, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

Speaking of Rollback, can I (and others who had it) have rollback here? Mr. Anon (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

But the thing is, considering the frequency of abuse, I'd rather just have people use a manual undo all the time. I don't see the point in giving a tool to a bunch of people who will just misuse it when they already have everything they need. Emmett 07:50, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

That's a good point, but it would be rather unfair in my opinion to those who did use rollback properly and did not abuse it. Although, I don't care too much either way if we still give rollback to users. Omega Tyrant 17:36, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

I like the idea of having a rollback group for two reasons - we don't need as many admins to easily counteract most vandalism, and we get a better idea of who future admins could be. Also, I don't think I've seen as much rollback abuse as I believe you're claiming. Toomai Glittershine 18:12, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, the only abuse I've seen is by BNK during that one edit war. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

@Anon: Then you don't pay very much attention.

@Toomai: I don't see it as an admin-indicator at all. I would never in a million years promote nearly any of the users with rollback to sysop. Also, everyone can already easily revert vandalism-- only difference is that it takes 1 click with rollback instead of 3 by undoing.

@OT: I don't see it as unfair, because they're losing a tool that was purely superfluous to begin with. It's also not meant to be a reward for good editing, either, merely a tool to (marginally) assist qualified users in reverting vandalism. If people are legitimately disappointed in losing rollback, they're probably not qualified to be in any elevated position anyway... Emmett 18:35, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

moving pages

As another note, I seem to have lost my ability to move pages. Can I (and other users with this problem) have this back, as I wish to archive my talk page now. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

See User_talk:Porplemontage#Autoconfirmed_Users. I'd be happy to move it for you if you tell me where you want it to go though. Emmett 14:41, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

Well, the thing is that I wanted to archive only specific discussions. It's OK, though, since I can wait the week. Thanks for the offer, though. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

You can't archive specific sections with a move... Emmett 15:34, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Rights on SmashWikia

Please remove any userrights I have there. As well, make my green font here go away.

Cheers.

Sky2042 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Done! Emmett 16:46, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Editing others' user pages

Hey, in case you're not aware, standard account users can't edit anyone else's user pages. Before, I was trying to remove a bunch of unwanted user pages from the Smasher category, and couldn't do it because I wasn't allowed to edit them. So I had to get OT to do it and that was kind of an inconvenience. This probably isn't any sort of major issue, but yeah, just letting you know. Shark (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

I already gotten that problem taken care of. Omega Tyrant 04:50, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. Shark (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

gig

→ moved to User talk:Gig

"One thing that I think I accidentally beat into the culture of SmashWiki is the ideas that policies are laws that form the backbone that must always be followed or else. This is not the case at all. Wikis are based on discussion and consensus, and blindly following rules (sometimes even to the point of harming the wiki just to be "by the book") is stupid."

do you enjoy having split personalitys?or are you just unaware how contradicting your beliefs and views are