SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Question

Is this gonna work like requests for a sysop? Cheezperson (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just an idea right now. An idea that is probably going to happen, but give it a bit so we can iron everything out. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, we need more vandalism reverting. I definitely approve. Cheezperson (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speed it Up!

Kperfekt may have done it in a rude way, but he made a good point on CH's page. This process needs to sped up so that there is less pressure on the sysops being on the site 24/7. Cheezperson (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We all know damn well that I'm a downright naturally rude person. KP317 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for pointing out the obvious. Good luck, though. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused.

I'm not quite sure what everyone is expecting out of rollback. It's nothing special, tbh. So you save a click or two and 1 page's load time, woo. Why are people having to run campaigns to get it? It'd be so much simpler and smarter to just ask KirbyKing (or any other active bureaucrat). Secondly, why is this being considered a pre-requisite for becoming a sysop? Rollbacks and sysop actions are so totally unrelated that comparing them just fails. "It shows that we can trust User:ABC" is also fail, because rollback is just a 1 click revert instead of 2. OHMIGAWD THE RESPONSIBILITY! Sky and KirbyKing managed to convince me that if it's taken as "candy" it's not an issue, but this is being taken as way more than just candy. --Shadowcrest 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's like you said, it shows who's responsible and who isn't. A rollback'r (that's what I call them) has the primary function, in my opinion, to revert vandal's edits. I think that's pretty important, as a quick rollback can't be undone by the vandal (unless they really want to mess the administration). Cheezperson {talk}stuff 02:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

roll back sounds like somethig that evry user should have 69.12.204.172 02:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I thought so too when I found out about it, but then I realized something. With the power to completely get rid of anything someone has written on a page, one can make the page biased in their favor. The trust of other users is necessary, as they have the power to change all that you have done on the site (sorry if that confused anybody). Cheezperson {talk}stuff 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

edit conflictUnlike what you said, what I said (well, I guess implied) is that rollback does not show who is responsible and who is not. People without rollback can revert just as effectively as users with it. Users with rollback should continue to edit as they always have, with the added bonus of being able to rv edits in 3 seconds instead of 8. And a rollback can be undone just like a manual revert can. I don't think the concept of rollback is being grasped here. --Shadowcrest 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, I (kinda-sorta) agree with the anon. Rollback is nothing special. --Shadowcrest 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

seems more like an inconvenience of not having it than anythin. wow big word. 69.12.204.172 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback doesn't get rid of everything that a user's done on a page. It reverts all the edits made by 1 user until another user last edited. For example, User:ABC edits an article 3 times, and before that User:DEF had edited the page. A rollback would revert ABC's 3 last changes to the page, not all 26 they've made previously. --Shadowcrest 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

well, i know how reverting edits work. woo, signature for the IP. --The Anonymous--

Sorry if that's what I implied, but I meant that they can revert something without someone being able to revert it back through undoing, or maybe I'm just confused. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 02:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

no, its just instead of "click click click", rollback lets u "click"--The Anonymous--

Yes. And rollbacks can be manually undone using the "undo" button, if that's what you don't understand. --Shadowcrest 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

so u dont have to practically own the wiki to get rollback. --The Anonymous--

Huh, are you sure? Rollback seems quite insignificant if that's the case. They have to have some sort of real power. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

nope, its like being awarded a pencil or sticker or somethin --The Anonymous--

reset indentQuite sure. I just tested on GuildWiki, where I have rollback rights and a shoepuppet to test with. Rollback is really just a 1-click revert; nothing else. I also don't think Kperfekt understands that either, judging by his opening speech. --Shadowcrest 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

i bet he feels silly after reading this. --The Anonymous--

But it does make one feel special, doesn't it. It also shows which users can be trusted by their associates. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

many wikis have automatic rollback, every1 who makes an account gets it. --The Anonymous--

It doesn't show trust; that's a big part of my argument cheez. --Shadowcrest 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it not show trust? A group of people have to agree that the user is qualified for the position. That's trust. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A group of people have to vote on whether or not they trust a user to have tools that they technically already have (via undo)? How sensible. (If you'll notice, thats also why I would prefer this not be a RfA-type process.) --Shadowcrest 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed, don't worry, but the "voting" (don't know what else to call it) does show trust between users. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The "trust" shown by this is negligable. --Shadowcrest 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it negligible? Would you vote for someone who you didn't trust? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem giving it to all registered users tbh. --Shadowcrest 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's really more of title more than anything else, and I don't want people undeserving of my trust to get the title. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So you argue that it's "candy", just a little extra bonus that really means nothing. I agree. However, the process with which it is attained and what it's being used for is certainly not just candy.

• We've got an all out RfA-style process for something that means basically nothing. Needs fixing.
• This is a prerequisite for sysop, which IS something worthy of speeches + voting. This makes no sense.

I'm mostly waiting for Clarinet Hawk to respond before I go all srsbsns, since he was its main advocator. --Shadowcrest 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the trust thing comes back into play when the prerequisite is mentioned. Users should be trusted and then prove that they can handle the (limited) responsibilities of a rollback'r before being considered to be an administrator. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can rollbackers delete pages or block users? - GalaxiaD (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, those are admin-only powers. Miles (talk - contribs) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear everything up, we're not actually requiring this for sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's the big fuss, anyways. Apply if you think it'll help your pattern of edits; don't if it won't. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons please

I am tired of seeing reasons that have nothing to with rollback, such as "You've matured since you first came to this wiki". That has nothing to do with rollback. Reasons should be related to Rollback and reverting such as "Your contributions show a good number of reverts, so rollback would help you continue with your reverts." And in my opinion, being active and not being a vandal isn't a good reason. If such was a good reason that could help somebody get promoted, then half of the users here could run. Rollback should be based on reverts, not friendship or activity levels.UP/T 01:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with part of SZL's argument. While it is important to have a decent amount of reverts, being an active vandal combater would suffice in being a rollback'r. Contributions and activity with vandal combating is also important, and rollback does not always apply to vandalism combating. What about adding delete tags to spam/joke pages? You can't find a way to keep track of delete tags on pages that are spam and yet it is also a vital part of vandalism fighting. Rollback should not be based only on reverts. Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 01:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Combater=Mostly Reverting Vandalism. And what does delete tags have to do with rollback? Rollback doesn't effect deletion. And anyways, rollback is mass reverting, so reverting is important to rollback, and having little to no reverts probably won't get you rollback. However, the popular "Active, not a vandal" thing applies to half of the community, so should half of the community run?UP/T 01:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, if it benefits the entire wiki. Should one act in good faith, and is active, then why not have an extra hand when vandals do sprout up? Also, putting delete tags alert admins which joke/spam/vandal pages needs to be removed, and it is part of vandal combating. Just because they don't have many reverts does not mean that they do not assume good faith and help fighting vandalism. Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 01:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If it bluntly says "Reverted edits by whoever", it is most likely a vandal revert, as when undoing an edit, it states "If not reverting vandalism, please enter a reason for your revert in the summary box" or something similar. If users did follow Wikia's rules and suggestions, this would be a lot easier. Thus, it is harder to tell, and as I stated earlier, rollback is a massive revert, and thus has nothing to do with deletion or joke pages. Also, half of the community should not have it, because, say somebody was making a bunch of edits to a page, such as Weight, and the user with rollback disagreed with the other editor, they can just undo all of their work in one click. Essentially, you could look at it as a major boost to edit wars. So there is a certain requirement and trust a user should have, so being active and a vandal won't really cut it.UP/T 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But even without rollback, you could still do that. It would just take three clicks instead of one. I don't see why rollback is such a big deal. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You and I both have it, why did you want it?Smoreking 2009 is coming! 14:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I requested rollback because I knew that it would help me fight vandalism. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so you based your RfR on the fact that you had a lot of reverts and wanted to fight vandals more, correct?Smoreking 2009 is coming! 00:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to help more. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly

This is getting out of hand. I can barely find any reasons for Fried Beef's RfR, as well as the other new requesting users. So far, these are the only reasons that come up:

"You'd be great with rollback!"

Saying that is simply making a prediction. You should probably add/go and see that they have enough reverts for rollback, then make this statement.

"You're a good friend!"

I admit to using that reason before, but I find this to be the worst. Friendship shouldn't get one a vote, although it's a great thing to have.

I've also noticed that many users started requesting rollback after others such as JtM and GxD. I ran because I'm active, and I've reverted much vandalism. Some of these users barely log into SmashWiki at all, let alone revert any vandalism, while some of them simply ran because others did and they thought it would be nice to have rollback just to have it. Unacceptable, really. I finally see what points Defiant Elements, SZL, and SmoreKing are trying to make. Rollback shouldn't be this easy to obtain, and I ask every user that plans on getting rollback just to be "in the fray" to just forget it, especially if you only have few reverts. Blue Ninjakoopa 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some reasons people use to vote for others are better than others:

"MarioGalaxy is a trustworthy, reliable editor throughout the site and regularly reverts vandalism."

This explains why MG deserves rollback.

"Friedbeef would be another valued addition to our anti-vandal team."

Less clear, but it's a true statement.

Rollback shouldn't be too hard to attain; it's not a prerequisite to RfA and is mostly for reverting vandalism. Just because someone hasn't done much reverting doesn't mean they won't. What's more important is that they are trustworthy to use the tool in the right way: to combat vandalism. Miles (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that rollback isn't that big a deal, I'm gonna have to disagree (standing on principle, if on nothing else) with giving users additional authority/responsibility/power (call it whatever you like) on the basis that if you do, they might start using it. Slippery slope is slippery, but, with that said, imagine applying the same principle to adminship. Yes, I know, adminship is of a different magnitude, but hey, let's face it, show me anybody who's been using wikis for a little while and who's got no blocks (/history of being a vandal, troll, etc.), and, odds are, it probably wouldn't "hurt" to give them adminship. They probably wouldn't use the additional responsibilities very often and it'd be a waste to give it to 'em, but they probably wouldn't do any real harm (and besides, we can always demote 'em, right?). That in mind, the fact is that we don't give adminship to just anybody.

Same thing goes for rollback. Rollback means something, otherwise we wouldn't have RfRs. Hell, if rollback really meant nothing, we wouldn't have people with user boxes proclaiming to anybody who will "listen" that such and such a user has rollback. After all, it's not like anybody else really needs to know, 'specially if the only reason that anybody applies is for the 100% altruistic reason that they wish to revert mundane vandalism. Variance in user rights, regardless of what that variance may consist, always has consequences, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle. Being a registered user as opposed to an anon, for instance, should have even fewer consequences than being a rollbacker as opposed to a registered user. After all, there's very, very little that a user can do that an anon cannot. And yet, we almost invariably treat anons differently than registered users (if only slightly). Most wikis tout policies like YAV, but the fact is that registered users are almost always given more respect, etc. to some degree or another.

Note, please, that I'm not saying that rollback is a privilege or an award or a promotion, or anything like that -- rollbackers, like admins, are nothing more or less than glorified janitors. However, as I point out here, either you've gotta come out and say that rollback is truly meaningless, and start giving it to everybody with 100 contributions and no blocks, or you've gotta say that, like adminship, we should only be giving it to people who've demonstrated not only the capacity (let's face it, 99/100 people are "qualified" to del/block/prot), but also the willingness to use the tools that are being bestowed upon them. Personally, I support the latter. – Defiant Elements +talk 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So... you're agreeing with me? Blue Ninjakoopa 01:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant who's agreeing with who. What matters is the fact that people need to understand what rollback is, what it's not, and what it is seen to be. That said, people need to stop thinking that it is a huge deal. And people need a reason to have it. It's not being requested for altruistic reasons, or by users whose normal patterns of editing show any need for it. I never even intended this whole thing to go down like this. I made the suggestion that we should do something to give more people rollback instead of just getting it with adminship, and it snowballed into this big deal. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that people are simply requesting rollback because A) Everyone else has it and B) they believe they should have it because they reverted one thing that they find important, such as your user page. I just hope it's not given to someone who will abuse it. Blue Ninjakoopa 01:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh...Smoreking^(T) _(c) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not a very good friend :( Blue Ninjakoopa 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just had to bring that up. It's fun pointing out hypocrisy.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrite? Please. I didn't know starting edit wars was a way of abusing rollback, but then again, you seemed to have enjoyed ratting me out. =( I should release you... Blue Ninjakoopa 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Plz dn0t.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 01:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay, but don't do that aga1n. Blue Ninjakoopa 01:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't want to get involved in this, but how did you not realize that edit waring was an abuse of rollback? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that my edit was the one to be fit into the article ._. Sorry... Blue Ninjakoopa 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you use the talk page. We've been over this many times. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe...

that admins should grant rollback. It is established in Wikipedia, and that it would take another burden off of CH's back, but have two admins approve of the request before it turns official. Friedbeef1 1/26/09! 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, Beef. Maybe, but I don't know how the idea would be activated. Toon Ganondorf (t c)

Don't really know how we would go about doing that. We'd have to bug Angela... Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly take a load off your shoulders. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Toon Ganondorf (t c)

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. :) --Sky (t · c · 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. Toon Ganondorf (t c)

I disagree. CH was promoted to bureaucrat because of his good judgment, among many other things. I'm not saying that admin's don't have good judgement too, it's just that they may not always make the universally best decision.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I still like TG's suggestion. If admin's decide that a user would make a good rollback'r, they can close it, but CHawk still has the chance to reject them if he has a good reason to believe that they don't deserve it. And anyway, CHawk can still remove rollback. Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy}

Doesn't that sorta defeat the entire purpose of this suggestion then? Either way, CHawk has to review the RfR and make a final decision before actual promotion takes place, so you're not actually lessening his work load. – Defiant Elements +talk 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• facepalms*CHawk this, CHawk that! No offense, but I seriously agree with TG, we need to stop leaning on CHawk for this kind of stuff. I'm sure he has other things he would like to do in life besides contribute to a wiki, no?Silvie (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Make me bcrat, solve everything tbh. :P --Shadowcrest 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CHawk is the only active user on this wiki actually capable of giving users rollback rights (with the exception of Wikia members, I 'spose). The fact that we have to lean on him is out of necessity. While it's fair to say that we only promote users to be SysOps whose judgment we trust, Bureaucrats are the only group elected for the explicit purpose of promoting/demoting, so it stands to reason to leave such judgments up to them. If you want to stop having to rely exclusively on CHawk, promote another Bureaucrat. – Defiant Elements +talk 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So are we going to promote another bureaucrat? Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy}

That person would need to request it first. --Shadowcrest 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New policy points

While I like most of what the new policy points are, I feel that a few changes should be made:

• SmashWiki:Rollback should be where these explanations are, just as SmashWiki:Administrators is separate from SmashWiki:Requests for adminship.
• Rollback is a special user status. Even though all users can undo, the ability to rollback is relevant as a special promotion for a vandal-fighter.
• When to run section, like in SW:ROLL would be helpful, as well as a clearer explanation of what rollback looks like in the page history and when to use it.

Thoughts? Miles (talk) 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!" :). --Sky (t · c · w) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

Smore, I was just going to say that vandals arn't usually on in my time when i'm active, as not many people from England go on smashwiki, whereas in America, a big Country, there are tons of vandals that come out to play when i'm offline/asleep, so that's the reason why i can't really revert/report many vandals. ~Teh Blue Blur~^{~You're too slow!~} 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So then don't run... Look back at Gutripper's RfR tbh. He had the same issue(kind of). I've seen vandals on when you're on too, so you can't really use that excuse.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 14:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Like who? How do i know you're just making this up? Just because you hate me is no excuse to to try and ruin my online time... ~Teh Blue Blur~^{~You're too slow!~} 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses, and this isn't because I hate you, I have a valid reason for opposing you.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 14:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

TBB, stop bringing emotions into this. It doesn't matter that we hate you, it's the fact that you don't deserve this tool. You shouldn't even be requesting this ability because you lose your temper when your edit is reverted, then you ask other users to help "take care" of the one that reverted your edit in the first place. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand... ~Teh Blue Blur~^{~You're too slow!~} 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably out of line, but...

Would I be able to archive this? Paper Bowser (talk) 01:08, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Miles (talk) 01:13, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

DP99's RFR

Is anyone else going to comment on my request? Just wondering. Dr. Pain 99 Talk 15:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

The state of RfRs

During the beginning of the move, Emmett voiced his opinion on wanting to remove requests for rollback, and remove the concept of giving standard users the rollback tool. However, he never pushed it much, and left the Wiki before any of this was made official. So I was thinking now that we as a community decide if we should still allow standard users to have access to rollback, and if so, do we keep RfRs for them, or will a simple request to a bureaucrat be the standard?

Currently, I don't have much of a strong opinion myself on either issue, and would like to hear the thoughts of other users before devising my own opinion. Omega Tyrant 19:39, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Oppose-I haven't seen much use for rollback anymore. Imo, it would cause more problems (accidental rollbacks, misuse of rollback, etc) that overweighs the benefits.MegaTron1XD 19:42, 31 January 2011 (EST)

I support having RfRs open. We can always decide they're not particular needed during an RfR if one should come up; having them closed really doesn't accomplish much. Miles (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Keep open - Stupid vandalism = Quick revert, less lag for me since my computer's been running dumbly lately. HavocReaper 21:26, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Oppose Vandalism seems to be much rarer here, so I don't think it would be very useful. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Hmmmmmmm Most of the vandalism we get these days is in the form of new pages, which can't be rollbacked. That said, Miles is right in that we can always decide whether a specific RfR is necessary. So in general I'm not sure. Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 21:47, 31 January 2011 (EST)

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. -Ivy73 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. ~SuperHamster Talk 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. ~SuperHamster Talk 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. 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. Omega Tyrant 11:52, 1 February 2011 (EST)

Bump. Omega Tyrant 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. ~SuperHamster Talk 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. Unknown the Hedgehog 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. There should be a minimum account age for rollback, though not very high (say two or three weeks).
4. 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.
5. 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. Toomai Glittershine 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. Omega Tyrant 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. Toomai Glittershine 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.T.testLPThe Communicator|The...WhateverGanondorf da bess! 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. Omega Tyrant 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)? Toomai Glittershine 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. Omega Tyrant 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--kyle.b talk 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. Omega Tyrant 12:08, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Alright I'm going to implement this now. Toomai Glittershine 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. Omega Tyrant 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. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 10:44, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Agreeing with the above. 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. Omega Tyrant 13:52, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Agree. Blindcolours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 14:42, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

edit conflict @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. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 14:45, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

some users that deserves rollback sometimes didnt get them just because they're offline? (°(..)°)Lucas-IV- Pigs 15:02, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

What? Blindcolours 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 (°(..)°)Lucas-IV- Pigs 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. Omega Tyrant 15:15, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I guess I agree with OmegaTyrant then. 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 this, this, and 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. Omega Tyrant 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. Omega Tyrant 15:56, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

You win. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 00:18, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

A question

1. "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."

2. "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? ReiDemon 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. Omega Tyrant 09:31, 12 September 2011 (EDT)