 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 2 July 2009 by Azaz129. |
I'm tired of reminding new rollbackers time after time again about the proper use of rollback. Sometimes I have to remind people several times consecutively. While I'm doing my best here to assume good faith, we need to be sure that anyone entrusted with rollback rights knows when to rollback and when to undo and add a reminder on the user/IP's talk page. With no offense intended towards our bureaucrats, I think that you should be required to prove that you understand RS:AGF and when to undo instead of using rollback before a b'crat can give you rollback rights.
Andrew talk 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I wonder whom this is about. 
Oil4 Talk 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Sort of Support - It is, as you sort of pointed out on my talk page, important (though a bit confusing at first) that you only rollback with obvious vandalism. However, how would someone prove that they understand RS:AGF? Oil4 Talk 20:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The bureaucrat could present them with a scenario and they would have to say whether or not they would use rollback. Andrew talk 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - It just makes sense. (Hey, isn't that some company's slogan?) http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Lots of people (Including me) have used rollback when they shouldn't of so It would help us to not make mistakes. 
Juliusc01Talk Click here if you think this wiki is obsessed with bunnies
21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Support Degen's proposal (below) - I've seen some bad rollbacks too. Hopefully will cut down on it. 
@Gaz#7521 21:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Simply stating what is right and what is wrong works too.
@Gaz#7521 10:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - The bad thing is that most people don't notice a user's misuse of rollback until significant investigation during RfA time, and when we tell the user, they're clueless about it ([1] [2]), so I think this would really help. The page that actually concerns reverting guidelines is H:RV.
Also, to be honest, rollback is overrated. All it does is saves you five seconds because it's a one-click revert instead of a three-click revert. Butterman62 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - It will cut down on misuse of the tool. I have seen 'crats deny people rollback though, so I am sure they check them out at least a little bit. †Blade
#† 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - How will this be proven. Must the user show examples of undo's and undo's where rollback would be used instead?
02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - Makes sense to me. 
Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker 
02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Kris, we were thinking about a simple quiz from a b'crat when someone requests rollback rights. They could present the user with several scenarios and they would have to decide whether they would use rollback or undo. Andrew talk 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I'd just like to clarify, why would prospective rollbackers be given the choice to either rollback or undo? I think it should be a choice of "is this vandalism?" or "is this not vandalism?". From an assuming good faith standpoint, undoing an edit without explanation is just as bad as rollbacking it. In fact, H:RV makes no real distinction between undo and rollback in regards of when to use them; it just says you can revert vandalism, but should not revert non-vandalism without explanation. Just throwing this out here. Butterman62 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I like your idea better after thinking about it, Butterman. Andrew talk 03:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - I had same thing. I wasn't using my rollback rights properly and requested them removed so now I use undo. 
Mo 55 55 Talk|Sign 06:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Its a great idea but asking our Crats to quiz people is bloody ridiculous. INSTEAD, we list 3 scenarios of where to use it, and 3 where we don't, and anyone wanting rollback has to sign that page saying they read and understand the difference between them. Then our Crats dont have to add even more tedium to thier roles here, and rollbackers will get instructed.--Degenret01 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- An apology to Soldier I was wrong to use the word ridiculous in my above statement. His proposal with a very slight tweak morphed into a useful tool for the community and it wouldn't have happened if he didn't make a proposal for us to start with.--Degenret01 13:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Changed to slight oppose - Per Degenret01, what he said made alot of sense to me. †Blade#† 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - That works too Degen. Andrew talk 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I like Degenret's comments too. As to Soldier, lol, you called me Kris. Although I really don't care, not everyone knows I am Kris, so perhaps Bonzi on discussion would be better, so users who don't know my name still know who you are talking to. =)
17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Degen's proposal - Great way to see whether potential admins know when to use rollback. Tien 23:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Degenret idea - Per Degenret--
Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Degen's proposal - nuff said. Andrew talk 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support pending - I've misused rollback 2 or 3 times when I wasn't being careful, but most of the time it's properly used. And by 2 or 3 times I mean 2 or 3 times. If they add nonsense to a page such as "@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@%$#&%($#%&($ **** YOUR ******* ****" or contribute obvious false information "Goblin Drops: dragon full helm (50% chance)", then it's rollbackable. 
Zezzima Talk • Edit # • SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Degenret's idea - That would be better than a complete quiz, I think. Oil4 Talk 07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Degenret's proposal - Per all. ~ 
Sentry Telos Talk 08:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The first rough draft is here. I am not listing every single possibility, as that list would grow every day. If you see a type or group that I didn't add yet put it on THAT pages talk page.--Degenret01 12:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Request closure as Degenret has gotten near universal support. --Serenity1137 10:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per my above comment, can we distinguish between vandalism and non-vandalism, instead of rollback and undo? I still support Degen's proposal though. Butterman62 (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- If [RuneScape:Rollback_examples] does not cover it can you elaborate Butterman?--Degenret01 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the page right now looks really good. It actually provides guidelines instead of saying "this is vandalism" or "this is not vandalism". perhaps maybe instead of just rollback, how about just "distinguish non-vandalism from vandalism"? Can I just make a few clarifying edits to it? Butterman62 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - this has 100% support.. is it OK to implement now? Andrew talk 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- MIchael Scott says: Yeppurs. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 21:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
support - I honestly do not see how anyone could oppose this. lol, dave. btw, you should close this. --User:Stelercus/Signature 01:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Closed - All future requesters of rollback will have to sign here inorder to receive it.--
13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)