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--

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)