- 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.
- Doesn't the Guild Wiki have something like this? In fact, I think most top gaming Wikis have a policy page for rollback.
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)
"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)