SmashWiki talk:Rollback

Opening/list loosely based off of SW:ADMIN. Miles (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...?

What is this useful for? Why do we need this? --Shadowcrest 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To define who is a rollback'r, what rollback'rs can do, to define their role/responsibility and to set some guidelines for RfR-ing. Miles (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this is so important, then I would advocate SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Proposal1 instead. It's better written, more professional, like and such as. Additionally, if a list of all rollbackers must be given, I would suggest a link to Special:Listusers/rollback as opposed to an actual list of all the people. Additionally:

• "Has the user contributed to the mainspace? Or are they mostly editing the User, User talk and forum namespaces?" is frankly untrue. People may say this is taken into account... but it's not. Sorry.
• "Additionally, consider that rollback is considered a "stepping stone" towards a request for adminship. While rollback'r status is not required, it is considered a sign that one has already shown themself to be wiki-competent." I'd rather like to change this perception. Rollback has nothing to do with adminship. At all. Zero, zip, zilch, nada... you name it. Concensus is that rollback means basically nothing; this line contradicts that community view.

--Shadowcrest 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Guild Wiki have something like this? In fact, I think most top gaming Wikis have a policy page for rollback. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have copied and proposed most of GuildWiki's rollback policy to SmashWiki:Requests for rollback/Proposal1. (The parts I didn't copy over are how rollback is obtained, since we do it differently.) --Shadowcrest 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

While I dislike the GuildWiki copy-pasta one, something like this has to be implemented. I care less which and more that it's one of them. Miles (talk)

...any suggestions on how to improve that one? What do you prefer about this one? --Shadowcrest 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"to everyone's satisfaction"

Unfortunately not. I accepted mine for a reason- you should have expected that accepting the original with the addition of my text would not pass favorably, not in the least of which because there is contradictory information.

• "This is to be used only for the reversion of edits that are blatantly unproductive"- this line is, frankly, wrong. Rollback is to be used only in the case of vandalism- otherwise, it is a violation of SW:AGF and SW:YAV to simply revert an edit that may or may not have been intended positively without some sort of explanation as to why the revert was performed. (Do also note that this contradicts several other lines in the policy.) Rollback is a tool for reverting vandalism, not a "get-out-of-explaining-free" card. Stop being lazy and explain your reverts pls. This line needs to be removed or changed to "This is to be used only for the reversion of vandalism." Not paraphrased, not with any added ambiguity, verbatim.
• This is not a promotion. In fact, sysop/bcrat appointments shouldn't even be considered a promotion. This is a pretty blatant contradiction of SW:YAV. When you start to say that rollback/sysop/bcrat status is a promotion, or a step above a regular user, you create an inferiority complex. Not only will some of these "regular users" feel less likely to contradict their "betters", they become less likely to contribute at all. Who wants to contribute in a place where they think they're not as good as the other people? Are the people who failed their RfR's somehow less valuable than those who passed? No. As has been pointed out, rollback should be given more on a "this user reverts frequently" than a "this user is active" basis. As such, I could make 9001 mainspace contribs without a single revert, be denied rollback, and someone who has only made 100 contribs (75% reverts) can pass. (Note: This is not to say that contributing to mainspace deserves any special reward or makes me somehow better than other users, because it doesn't. Kthx.) Therefore, any mention of promotions or any text that implies such needs to be edited/removed. --Shadowcrest 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make some changes to reflect your points, which have merit. Better, or what else would you change? Miles (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

Um, what's the point? So you have to give three examples of when you reverted vandalism so you can revert vandalism? That's just not right... AccoolX 16:03, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Anyone can undo vandalism, but rollback lets you do it with fewer clicks and page loads. The page lists other differences between rollback and the basic undo tool. Toomai Glittershine The Researcher 17:04, 5 March 2012 (EST)

I really do not understand how to use rollback powers ShupaRoeh 22:19, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Its a faster way of reverting edits. All you have to do is one click on the rollback link and the edit is instantly reverted. ..... The EarthBound 22:42, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

So this means you cant be sure if it is the right choice? ShupaRoeh 17:19, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

...Rollbackers always know what they are rollbacking. Toast ltimatum 18:08, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Why isn't there...

a list of rollbackers? I understand that it saves time to just link people to Special:Listusers/rollbacker, but I'm wondering why SW:ADMIN has a list of admins and this page doesn't have a list of rollbackers. Air Conditioner Maybe I'm crazy... 17:35, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Bump. Air Conditioner lives in a yellow submarine 20:16, 24 December 2012 (EST)

Double bump. Air Conditioner Tomorrow never knows. 17:42, 28 December 2012 (EST)

...Cos there's loads? I dunnno. All of the bumping. Toast ltimatum 18:16, 28 December 2012 (EST)

There's only 15. I wouldn't mind listing them myself, but I'm just checking to see if there's some sort of reason why that I don't know. :\ Air Conditioner You say you want a revolution? 19:01, 28 December 2012 (EST)

I see none. I wouldn't contest a list here. --RoyboyX Talk 21:40, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Now that I've actually seen this I can comment: I see no point in having a list of rollbackers because there is only one situation where you would need to actively look for a rollbacker (vandalism attack), and in those cases you should be undoing the vandalism yourself instead. The argument that the list changes more frequently than the admin list is weak but it's also existant (especially since the guy who added the list (after a "long, long, long time" of an astounding five days) decided to use the same activity division system, which requires a lot of upkeep). Give me a better reason than "because there's an admin list". Toomai Glittershine The Different 22:17, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Autopatrolled edits?

Would it be worth having rollbackers' edits marked as patrolled automatically? I recognize patrolling isn't exactly highly used, but it still makes no sense to me to have the edits of a group that is specifically trusted to stop vandalism marked for checking if their edits are vandalism. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 08:11, 13 October 2015 (EDT)

1. It might clog up the patrol log. 2. Rollbackers would have extra peace of mind of non rollbackers like me. So yeah... I'm pretty much neutral, leaning towards supporting your idea. INoMed ^(Talk) 09:01, 13 October 2015 (EDT)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 14:52, 23 January 2016 (EST)

I well Support this. It's at least 99.9999% likely that people with rollback are good faith and wouldn't be a vandal. Penro, the and main. 15:06, 23 January 2016 (EST)

I honestly don't know what patrolling is for soooo ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 15:12, 23 January 2016 (EST)

It's for ensuring if the edit being made isn't vandalism. Penro, the and main. 15:22, 23 January 2016 (EST)

SUPPORT Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 15:14, 23 January 2016 (EST)

I don't know what you mean by patrol log. Could someone elaborate on what you guys are trying to do so I or maybe DatNuttyKid can know exactly what's going on? -- Ethan (Discussion) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (EST)

here Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 15:29, 23 January 2016 (EST)

But what exactly is it for? What does patrolling a certain revision of a page even do? How does it help against vandalism? -- Ethan (Discussion) 15:37, 23 January 2016 (EST)

The idea behind the system is that it indicates an edit is "checked" and verified to not be problematic in whatever capacity. On a wiki this size, it's not particularly crucial. Miles (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2016 (EST)

The system checks edits it thinks could be vandalizing the article? Why did it check the edit you just made to this page? -- Ethan (Discussion) 15:45, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Or why did you just patrol your own edit? -- Ethan (Discussion) 15:48, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Other way around. The system assumes all edits are unchecked and therefore potentially of poor quality or vandalism. However, as an admin, it assumes I've checked the whole page to make sure it's of good quality and therefore the edit is automatically "verified" (patrolled). Miles (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2016 (EST)

I think I finally understand. Any time an admin clicks "diff" it records that you checked the change. The supporters want it to also to that with rollbackers, since it's their job to check edits and watch out for vandals. -- Ethan (Discussion) 16:07, 23 January 2016 (EST)

One slight correction: clicking diff doesn't do it; my saving an edit afterwards does. Miles (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2016 (EST)

It won't say it's okay unless you make an edit after? -- Ethan (Discussion) 16:15, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Let me try to clarify: I can mark someone else's edit by clicking a "mark as patrolled" option it gives me. However, any edits I make are automatically marked as patrolled. Miles (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Oh, that's what else I thought you could mean (and it's both). If an admin makes and edit after the edit or hits the special button, then it will be recorded as patrolled. -- Ethan (Discussion) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Support. A solution to clogging the log up is making a filter for Rollbackers. -- Ethan(Discussion) 12:48, 10 February 2016 (EST)

Eh, no: Not necessary, also, who cares about patrolled edits on a wiki this size? Serpent King 13:16, 10 February 2016 (EST)

Bump. Anyone have an opinion? -- Ethan(Discussion) 15:25, 26 February 2016 (EST)

Require confirmation when performing a rollback

So after my fourth accidental rollback I'm wondering: I always have confirmation requirment enabled, but somtimes when I press "rollback" on recent changes I get stopped to require a confirmation, and sometimes I don't get stopped and rollback anyway. Does anyone know why this happens? I don't want people thinking I'm misusing the tool. SupαToαd64 23:37, November 5, 2019 (EST)

Well, for me, I haven't got an accidental rollback yet I think. From my experience, rollback seems to always require confirmation on mobile if I have confirmation requirement on. I don't know the computer version tho. Naughty🐽GRAND DAD 自閉肥宅 23:51, November 5, 2019 (EST)

I'm on desktop so I guess that explains it. It's usually happens whenever a "rollback" link is directly above a "diff" link on recent changes, and someone makes an edit right as I'm clicking "diff". Personally I think all versions should always require confirmation. SupαToαd64 08:22, November 10, 2019 (EST)

No way, the whole point of rollback is that it's supposed to be a quick way to deal with vandalism. Requiring confirmation can be counter-productive, especially when there are rapid-fire vandal attacks which happen from time to time. Accidentally clicking rollback really isn't that big a deal, just undo the rollback. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 08:30, November 10, 2019 (EST)

What I meant was as a preferences option for desktop like on mobile, but I see your point though. SupαToαd64 08:44, November 11, 2019 (EST)

Ok, the way you worded it made it seem as though you meant for requiring confirmation to be mandatory. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:21, November 11, 2019 (EST)