RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
Line 47: Line 47:
::I like the idea, but I think that it might be a bit over-the-top for such a small tool. Also, RfR = Request for clan chat Rank, so we'd need to think of a new abbreviation. {{Signatures/Oli4burggraa}} 17:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
::I like the idea, but I think that it might be a bit over-the-top for such a small tool. Also, RfR = Request for clan chat Rank, so we'd need to think of a new abbreviation. {{Signatures/Oli4burggraa}} 17:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
:::A Request for Rollback page wouldn't be worth it... I mean, people can still undo an edit. {{Signatures/Frede173}} 17:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
:::A Request for Rollback page wouldn't be worth it... I mean, people can still undo an edit. {{Signatures/Frede173}} 17:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I still hate you Caleb, and Degenret, a crown is a crown, images do not have effect on equality unless taken with actions; words are the same too. {{Signatures/Fruit.Smoothie}} 01:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:53, 9 January 2010

Forums: Yew Grove > Rollback - A privilege, not a right.

Lately, I've been noticing that people are starting to catch on to a trend: the rollback-request frenzy. It seems that people are starting to believe that simply having this special feature (which normal and most users don't have) makes them more powerful. This is absurd, ridiculous, and just plain stupid!

I won't be calling out anybody, but I've seen people who request rollback rights (and only had about 50 edits at the time of their request!) just to abandon all thoughts of the privileged feature, revert an edit about 2 times in about a year, and that's that. What a waste.

People are beginning to think that being able to Rollback is a right, not an honor. I would like for them to re-think their values. If you're only going to be using the Rollback feature simply to show off - or go crazy as soon as you get it, then you might as well stick to Undo-ing. Just because you are able to use Rollback doesn't grant you any more given power than the rest of us, as every editor is equal. Power shall be distributed evenly and equally too.

Please stop misusing, abusing, and having misconceptions of what this special function gives you. Please revert edits with the same respect and thought you put as any other Undo. There is no significant difference between being able to Rollback; it's just designed to allow easier reverting of edits. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope that people will stop thinking it's a sign of power. And I hope stricter rules and policies are governed and enforced on behalf of the ability to Roll-back, as this is NOT a right, but a privilege. Thanking you for reading

-- Fruit.Smoothie 02:59, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree. It's seen as a status symbol to some people. Instead of a tool to help the community Swiz Talk Review Me 09:03, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed. Unless the person plans on patrolling the Recent Changes for at least 10 minutes a week, there's no need to have rollback. It's not like you're gonna find vandalism on a page 8 hours after it's been put there, someone always fixes it withing seconds or minutes. Therefore, the only way to make use of this tool is to patrol the RC for vandals and rollback them. Otherwise, the person is only requesting it so they can show off or feel they have a sense of power. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 09:13, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with this, Rollback is not a right it only allows the user to fight vandalism easier. User:Cruser234 is well known for abusing this privilege (just giving an example). Gragon 126 Talk 17:59, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think Cruser gamed the system, not abused his rights Swiz Talk Review Me 18:04, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
When I said he abused his rights, I meant that he was trying to show-off with it. Like for example saying: "CAN'T YOU SEE MY ROLLBACK CROWNNN?!!!" and things like that. But well, this thread is not about him so... :P Gragon 126 Talk 18:06, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think we should reconsider our "policies" concerning who rollback rights are given to, anybody who is given the extra tool helps the wiki, helping the wiki is good in my books, as I'm sure it is in most peoples. However, this is not a reason for these "Boasters" to be justified, I suggest that all users who feel that they are somehow better than other editors just because they have access to a certain tool, should have a good long read of RS:AEAE. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 18:23, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - When the rollback feature was first introduced on Wikipedia, I was one of the early supporters of the concept and encouraging its introduction into the MediaWiki software suite. My advocacy for the concept of giving somebody rollback rights was to permit an "apprentice administrator" or somebody wanting to help with the anti-vandalism squad to get a little bit of a extra support when helping out. If you are genuinely seeking administrator status on this wiki, seeking rollback status is an excelling first step in the process of trying to become an admin. There certainly are legitimate trolls on this wiki where such rights can really make a huge difference. This said, it is also a source of abuse, which is also why it should be mentioned as an apprentice admin as well.... if you abuse such little authority as you have with rollback features, you certainly aren't to be trusted with admin tools. To me, it sounds like it is doing its job very well, to filter out potential problems by showing people with immaturity.

Perhaps it is time to put some additional standards up for what qualifies for this extra privilege. --Robert Horning 18:37, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - It's not a right, but it's absolutely certainly surely not a privilege! It's just a tool, a way of undoing things faster! I think the page for rollback requests should be changed to also include having to read RS:AEAE at least three times, to make sure misunderstandings like these don't happen again. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:51, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Per above, perhaps Template:User rollback should be deleted. User:C Teng/sig 22:50, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
It is after all, just as much a violation of AEAE as the crown images were. (oh wait... THEY WEREN'T.) I call for their undeletion, and then have a VfD setup. Maybe not the rollback one, but the administrator and bureaucrat ones, why the heck not? Do the images imply, "I am a sysop and you are not, and thus you are less than I"? No! They simply are saying, "I am an administrator/bureaucrat." And making a statement, is that a violation of AEAE? I don't think so. But this is utterly unrelated to rollbacks, but I dunno where else I should say it. :| 23:46, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
An image of a CROWN does indeed imply authority and/or royalty. There is no two ways about it, that is what a CROWN stands for. Had the pictures been of chisels, buckets, hammers, or some other TOOL (re:sysop TOOLS) then I wouldn't have cared as much. They STILL would be personal pics and deletable per policy, but I probably wouldn't have bothered.--Degenret01 10:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
VfU them. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 00:09, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
But they weren't deleted. They were just blanked. And it's just like the mainpage protection. When it was found that it was protected without discussion, they didn't go through a discussion to unprotect it. They unprotected it then had a discussion about whether it should be protected. Which is what should happen. 00:23, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dave, crowns served pretty much the same purpose as hilited usernames, but those haven't been removed. Although people do at times feel overly empowered by user rights, I don't think it makes sense to remove every element that might distinguish one user from another just because in some cases that does make other users seem inferior. There is no denying the fact that administrators have greater control over the administrative aspects of the wiki, therefore they are not equal to all uses in that regard. AEAE should only pertain to how users are treated in regards to their say in a discussion and the way their edits are viewed. I also definitely don't agree with calling rollback privilege. Rollback is a tool that editors use to better the wiki, nothing more. Rollback is (or should be, I cant speak for our 'crats) granted to a user if it seems that a user will use rollback to benefit the wiki. I'm pretty sure the only reason its not a default tool for new users is its potential for abuse. In other words, rollback is nothing special. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:10, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
WHAT? The crowns were deleted because they apparently showed a form of authority? 1. The crowns are were there to assist the viewer in knowing that the user is an admin/'crat/whatever. 2. It was also there to make te userbox look more appealing. Templates always look pretty with an image. ^_^ 3. If it is the fact that they were "crowns" which represent royalty which is authority, I believe they were crowns because Jagex/player/forum mods user crowns. At first there was only one admin crown and it was derived from the in-game one, with the little pixelated "M". Then we made another one for 'crats, then bots, then staff and helpers, and somewhere in the middle a rollback one was made. If people go pasting them on their signature, go boasting it around the forums, etc. then we should do something. I think the crowns should be brought back and only used on userpages by the users; also maybe try and change the usage from "crown" to "icon". Wikipedia has an icon for admins there. Anyway, my view on the rollbacks acting all authoritative, just tell 'em that they can't go boasting about it. Simple as that. Not much we can do, the policies already state it is not a right, privelige, honour or, in a way, status. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:21, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Let's not go overboard here. Sure rollback is no big deal and if a user is treating people unequally, then deal with that as it comes. I don't think we need to completely reexamine casually giving a trusted user the rollback tool. And I don't think we need to delete userboxes that merely identify a users tools. It's not like the userboxes say "I'm better than you because I have this tool". They just say "I have access to these tools". Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 08:23, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I think the userboxes should stay, because they're usually not used for boasting but for showing 'I am an admin. I have these tools.' and only that. However, I think that the smaller crowns, which are often used in sigs, should be removed, simply because new users will think 'oh, he's got a crown, he must be the boss!' and that makes RS:AEAE confusing for them. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:25, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Keep the userbox, bring back the crowns, ban the usage of crown icons in signatures and tighten our tolerance of "bragging" and "boasting". Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:44, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree, I've seen several request who have absolutely no intention to use it. I myself was going to ask, but haven't yet because I don't know if I'll use it. I think we should up the standards for Rollback, maybe an edit requirement and evidence of actually fighting vandalism, instead of just thinking you will with it. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

17:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

What about a Request for Rolback (RfR)? Yes and I'm being serious about it. Gragon 126 Talk 17:40, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I think that it might be a bit over-the-top for such a small tool. Also, RfR = Request for clan chat Rank, so we'd need to think of a new abbreviation. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
A Request for Rollback page wouldn't be worth it... I mean, people can still undo an edit. FredeTalk 17:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I still hate you Caleb, and Degenret, a crown is a crown, images do not have effect on equality unless taken with actions; words are the same too. Fruit.Smoothie 01:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)