Anonymous user
Forum:Changing requirements for rollback requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Changing requirements for rollback requests (edit)
Revision as of 03:10, 1 May 2014
, 10 years ago→Discussion
imported>Lost Labyrinth No edit summary |
imported>Icemandeaf |
||
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)
| |||