Forum:Changing requirements for rollback requests
I'd like to discuss whether we should change our expectations for users' requests (or nominations) for rollback. Specifically, I would like to remove the requirement that users have an anti-vandalism history.
I'm proposing this change because of the way that our wiki promotes users to administrator. Namely, you have to be a rollbacker in order to be eligible to become an administrator. But there are several competent, efficient and otherwise strong editors who simply don't have a history of reverting vandalism. There may be several reasons for this. The Sims Wiki almost always has at least one admin or bureaucrat online, ready to revert vandalism at a moment's notice; several of these users may simply not be quick enough to respond. Additionally, non-admins may be afraid of asserting themselves out of concern that they may be overridden or even punished by an administrator for stepping out of line; this fear may be preventing them from taking appropriate action. Finally, the Abuse Filter has cut down on the amount of vandalism committed on the wiki, reducing the amount available for non-admins to revert.
The rollback user "rank" puts an undue emphasis on anti-vandalism at the expense of other qualities an editor may possess. This means, when it comes to nominating new administrators, we're limited to only those users who have a strong anti-vandalism history, even if there are non-rollbackers who are otherwise competent and active enough to make decent administrators. After all, reverting vandalism and addressing vandals is only one aspect of administratorship. Additionally, while the rollback tool is specifically an anti-vandalism tool, the users who occupy that rank are among the most active and experienced editors, excluding administrators. We should be selecting potential rollbackers for their editing skill, trustworthiness, and overall strength of contributions, not simply because they know how to use the 'undo' button. A skillful, trustworthy and strong editor can be taught to combat vandalism, after all.
Ultimately, I feel that eliminating the anti-vandalism history requirement allows otherwise experienced editors to step into a role that is only marginally more powerful than that of a regular editor, but it opens the door for those users to become even stronger editors, and possibly to become administrators in the future. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:55, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Support. We're not Wikipedia, which is vandalized hundreds of times a day. Over there, getting rollbacker status isn't a problem (I was eligible for the rights a few days into the job! Holy moly). Besides, as rollback is a prerequisite for admin rights, and administrators do not necessarily have to take part in anti-vandalism work, we're literally preventing potential admin candidates from entering the wiki. Let's remove that hurdle towards the mop and pail, shall we? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:01, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Support. k6ka said what I wanted to say as well: admin here do a very good job of reverting edits, and I myself had very little opportunity to undo bad edits myself. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 02:13, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
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. Lost Labyrinth .svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 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. 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. Beds (talk - blog) 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! C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:30, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warring can be swiftly dealt with, either by blocking or by removal of the tool. --k6ka (talk | 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. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 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. Beds (talk - blog) 12:01, May 1, 2014 (UTC)