[dismiss]
| Welcome to SmashWiki! Log in or create an account and join the community, and don't forget to read this first! |
| Notices |
|---|
| The Skill parameter has been removed from Smasher infoboxes, and in its place are the new "Best historical ranking" and "Best tournament result" parameters. SmashWiki needs help adding these new parameters to Smasher infoboxes, refer to the guidelines here for what should be included in these new parameters. |
| When adding results to Smasher pages, include each tournament's entrant number in addition to the player's placement, and use the {{Trn}} template with the matching game specified. Please also fix old results on Smasher pages that do not abide to this standard. Refer to our Smasher article guidelines to see how results tables should be formatted. |
| Check out our project page for ongoing projects that SmashWiki needs help with. |
SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/Proposal1
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Credit: GuildWiki. --Shadowcrest 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
I have really mixed feelings about this proposal. First off, the RfR page ≠ a policy on what a rollback'r does/how to use rollback, just as SW:ADMIN ≠ SW:RFA. Also, I disagree that rollback is not a user status; it is. The fact that one can go to Special:Listusers/rollback shows that. While it may be of lesser importance compared to "sysop" or "bureaucrat," it is still a user status with one additional tool. Miles (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You could argue the "RfR != description" on the precedent "RfA != description", but then you could argue that rollback is so amazingly insignificant that comparing it to something important like adminship doesn't make a lot of sense. There really doesn't need to be a separate page detailing the uses of rollback and what the users with it are expected to do; it can fit right in on the RfR page.
- The keyword in "Rollback is not a special user status" is special. If you want to argue the technicality that rollback is a user status, then I would have to yield, because yes, rollback is technically a user status in addition to being a revert tool. However, once the word 'special' is included, then the sentence becomes true. Rollback is not special, at all. People with rollback do not immediately become outstanding community members; they just aren't vandals. That's all. --Shadowcrest 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Outstanding, no. Noteworthy in some way? Most certainly. Rollback can be seen as a way of highlighting SmashWiki's best vandal-fighters, and even if it isn't very "special," it is still of note. Miles (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Neither noteworthy nor worth highlighting. How is being able to do something that everyone can do notable? :/ --Shadowcrest 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Outstanding, no. Noteworthy in some way? Most certainly. Rollback can be seen as a way of highlighting SmashWiki's best vandal-fighters, and even if it isn't very "special," it is still of note. Miles (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The keyword in "Rollback is not a special user status" is special. If you want to argue the technicality that rollback is a user status, then I would have to yield, because yes, rollback is technically a user status in addition to being a revert tool. However, once the word 'special' is included, then the sentence becomes true. Rollback is not special, at all. People with rollback do not immediately become outstanding community members; they just aren't vandals. That's all. --Shadowcrest 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
