SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback/Proposal1

Credit: GuildWiki. -- Shadow  crest  23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I have really mixed feelings about this proposal. First off, the RfR page ≠ a policy on what a rollback'r does/how to use rollback, just as ADMIN ≠ RFA. Also, I disagree that rollback is not a user status; it is. The fact that one can go to Special:Listusers/rollback shows that. While it may be of lesser importance compared to "sysop" or "bureaucrat," it is still a user status with one additional tool.  Miles ( talk)  02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You could argue the "RfR != description" on the precedent "RfA != description", but then you could argue that rollback is so amazingly insignificant that comparing it to something important like adminship doesn't make a lot of sense. There really doesn't need to be a separate page detailing the uses of rollback and what the users with it are expected to do; it can fit right in on the RfR page.
 * The keyword in "Rollback is not a special user status" is special. If you want to argue the technicality that rollback is a user status, then I would have to yield, because yes, rollback is technically a user status in addition to being a revert tool. However, once the word 'special' is included, then the sentence becomes true. Rollback is not special, at all. People with rollback do not immediately become outstanding community members; they just aren't vandals. That's all. -- Shadow  crest  02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Outstanding, no. Noteworthy in some way? Most certainly.  Rollback can be seen as a way of highlighting SmashWiki's best vandal-fighters, and even if it isn't very "special," it is still of note.  Miles (talk)   02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither noteworthy nor worth highlighting. How is being able to do something that everyone can do notable? :/ --  Shadow  crest  02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)