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

m
Line 240: Line 240:
:::::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)
:::::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)
::::::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)