SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 1
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--
- 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)
- no, its just instead of "click click click", rollback lets u "click"--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)
- well, i know how reverting edits work. woo, signature for the IP. --The Anonymous--
- 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)
- seems more like an inconvenience of not having it than anythin. wow big word. 69.12.204.172 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)