Anonymous user
Forum:Changing requirements for rollback requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Changing requirements for rollback requests (edit)
Revision as of 01:30, 18 May 2014
, 10 years agono edit summary
imported>Lost Labyrinth No edit summary |
imported>LostInRiverview No edit summary |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
I'd like to discuss whether we should change our expectations for users' [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for rollback|requests (or nominations) for rollback]]. Specifically, I would like to remove the requirement that users have an anti-vandalism history.
Line 14:
I've always felt that rollback is seen as too much as a stepping stone to adminship rather than a tool to aid editors in assisting the wiki in good faith. It doesn't have to be seen this way and I have an idea of how we can change that but that's probably for another thread at another time. As for the matter at hand and going by how things are currently done, I'm in support of this proposal. It only makes sense. {{LabSig}} 20:56, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
I admit that there were times that I didn't undo intentional vandalism because of the very thing that was said. I didn't want to be told that I shouldn't be doing that because it wasn't my role, or worse be punished for it. I can't remember what made me take the first step to go ahead and revert a change. Maybe it was because I was up late one night and there wasn't anyone online, but there was someone doing some vandalism that really made me mad that it wasn't being undone for at least an hour. All I remember was that once I had done it and was even thanked for doing it, that I went ahead. Apparently that made me eligible to be rollbacker even when I had never heard of it before. Anyway, I have to agree that changing that requirement might be good if you want more people who could take the role if they only knew about it. [[User:Icemandeaf|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk:Icemandeaf|talk]]) 03:10, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for supporting this. The requirements should be a little bit easier to uphold, and it would be great to see more rollbackers. I constantly see good editors on Recent Activity and when I look through their contributions, I find it unfair that a requirement is holding them back. I'm all for it. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 09:45, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
I do have a slight concern that we may get some users who will use the rollback tools for the wrong reasons - I mean clearly doing so for the wrong reasons - for example edit warring. Other than that, I'm all for supporting this! '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 10:30, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
:Edit warring can be swiftly dealt with, either by blocking or by removal of the tool. --'''[[:User:K6ka|k6ka]]''' ([[:User talk:K6ka|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/K6ka|contribs]]) 10:46, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
::That's true. But I still have a feeling we'll be seeing some more users who use the rollback tools for the wrong reasons. '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 10:58, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
:::I guess if that does happen, then action will be taken almost immediately. But, I doubt users would use the rollback tool to start edit wars. However, if that does happen, then the administrator team will take action and put a stop to those users using the rollback tool wrongly. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 12:01, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
::::If they abuse it, we can simply remove it. Not a big deal. {{LabSig}} 13:27, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
:::::It's also worth noting that there have been no instances in the past of people abusing rollback (so far as I know). If it hasn't happened already, it doesn't seem likely to happen in the future. We currently have 55 editors in the Rollback user group, as well as multiple administrators or bureaucrats who were rollbackers prior to their promotion; even with all these people, the problem never occurred. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 13:39, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the reasons given above, and '''support''' this proposal. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 13:53, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
I support the requirement change. I've actually had this matter in my mind for some time. I believe there are several other qualities that qualify a user to become a rollback other than an anti-vandalism history, as mentioned by LiR. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 12:33, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
----
Given the positive response to this thread, I have implemented the proposed changes. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 01:30, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
| |||