Forum:Create RuneScape:Requests for rollback

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Create RuneScape:Requests for rollback
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 October 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Our current means of requesting rollback are disorganized. With rollback more popular than ever nowadays, I believe that we need a more organized method of handing out the rollback tool.

Our current method is something like the following:

  1. User asks bureaucrat for rollback.
  2. Bureaucrat checks that the user meets the requirements (30 day account, 200 mainspace edits), and replies with directions to read Help:Revert, RuneScape:Rollback examples, and RuneScape:Assume good faith and sign RuneScape:Rollback examples/Signed.
  3. User does so, and asks the bureaucrat again.
  4. Bureaucrat grants the tool.

That is a very messy system. For one thing, the user will not know which bureaucrat to ask. Some may be inactive for quite a while before seeing the message. Second, it's inefficient for the bureaucrat to tell each requester to read the specified pages. Azaz has a note on his talk page about this, which relieves some of the problem, but it's still inefficient when looking at all the bureaucrats in a group.

So, I am proposing that we create a RuneScape:Requests for rollback page. This is not a page where community discussions take place in a manner similar to RfA's. It's just a central location for users to get all the resources they need about rollback, and for users to check to see if the requester meets the requirements. If the requester does not, then a bureaucrat does not even have to be bothered, as a sysop can just remove the name. I've created a sample in my sandbox: User:Liquidhelium/Sandbox/Requests for rollback. Here, users are given explicit directions and are told the requirements upfront.To facilitate matters, I've created a template found here for requests. Users can check if the requester meets the requirements. They can confirm by adding a |confirm=true/false parameter, and sign their confirmation with a |name=(signature) parameter. This tells a crat that the user is confirmed to meet the requirements, so the crat doesn't have to waste time looking that up himself. When a crat grants rollback, he will move the line to the signed names list, while adding a |crat=(signature) to indicate that he has granted rollback tools. This will make it very simple and very easy for people to see who has received rollback tools and who the crat that granted the tools are, without having to look in the user rights log. Note that this will also supersede the RuneScape:Rollback examples/Signed page, as it replaces its function. I've added a note similar to the RfA agreement so that users who want rollback know what they're getting themselves into.

As a side note, this proposal also is for making the rollback quiz official. It's a great resource for users to test their rollback judgment, and as such I've placed a link to it on that page. It wouldn't be very nice if that page linked to my userspace.

Anyways, that's all I can think of right now; I'll add more if I come up with anything. --LiquidTalk 20:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As it is common knowledge that I fail at wiki markup, anyone is welcome to improve my template for coding issues.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 20:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Support (see below) - I already gave the page a look and I believe this over-complicates the process (as I just said on your talk page). It is not hard at all for a 'crat to make a simple check for 200 edits/30 days, and adding in other stuff just makes a simple process unnecessarily complex. HaloTalk 20:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In response to talk, I don't believe it takes very long for a 'crat to check someone's userpage/edit count. They aren't extremely active, but we have enough semi-active 'crats that it really isn't a problem the way I see it. HaloTalk 20:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The main problem that I see with requesting rollback as is isn't the checking edits/time issue. It's the fact that users have no idea where to go to request rollback, and have no idea what to do. It's much easier to have that stuff listed in a central location. --LiquidTalk 20:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
That is a fair point. I never really understood rollback until I stumbled across it. Perhaps there is a way to keep it roughly the same, but make it a more common link to find. HaloTalk 20:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If there wasn't a mainspace requirement before this, I oppose this. If there was, then I'm neutral as I'm not particularly fond on setting 500 mainspace edits part two of the requirements. Just having it at 30 days and at least 100 mainspace would accomplish this (according to Special:ListUsers on rollbacks, only two do not have 100 edits or more). Ryan PM 21:01, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

That was established by the last rollback thread actually. HaloTalk 21:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Although as seen here, that rule can be bent in certain situations. HaloTalk 21:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Its 200 edits that aren't User:, User talk: or to RuneScape:Sandbox. RuneScape:Rollback Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
You know, 500 mainspace edits is an extreme overkill. I had my rollback tools ages before that. bad_fetustalk 07:46, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support one place to request Rollback tool, Oppose the Quiz It would make it simpler. I almost opposed because LH wrote too damn much and I didn't want to read it all. Brevity is not a bad thing man.--Degenret01 01:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the quiz? It is optional. It's just a resource for users to use if they want it; no one is required to take it. --LiquidTalk 01:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it has been fixed, but the last time I checked it was way too ambiguous. Which means it didn't adequately inform, so it was not helpful, but actually hurt.--Degenret01 01:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
The quiz is a lot better now. I was able to get 90% this time...and the one I missed was meh. No one would have beat me up over it. HaloTalk 04:00, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - So long as this doesn't become overly bureaucratic. BTW I oppose the quiz, because practical experience > written test. ajr 01:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Overly bureaucratic is pretty much what is being proposed. It's already a pretty simple process (that has been working very well for a long time). HaloTalk 04:02, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I would support it as a way to centralise rollbacking-obtaination. But the quiz needs improvement. 222 talk 06:51, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Question - What is this "quiz" everyone keeps mentioning? Matt (t) 06:56, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

This. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and there's also Liquid's modified version here. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support both - The page would help because it gets all the discussions off talk pages and makes it easier and quicker for the crats. Also i support making liquids quiz official as it is not ambiguous and it could be a useful tool. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:51, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support both - Per Sentra246. Matt (t) 07:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Am I missing something here? We have ONE place to get the rollback tool. If the name of the page matters that much, we move it, but Liquid's process makes it way too much bureaucracy which I have seen many people oppose on previous threads. Is anyone bothering thinking here? Maybe we could get a 'crat or two to come in here and tell us if taking another 60 seconds to check someone's edit count and their userpage would bother them. I don't think our 'crats are lazy or selfish, and I don't think it would bother them. So unless I'm missing something here, I think most of you guys are full of crap and just jumping on the bandwagon. HaloTalk 15:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The point of my proposal is to make a central location where users can find out about the rollback tool and where they can get it. The rest of the process was just me saying "I might as well". I could care less if the whole process is passed or not, as long as the central page is created. --LiquidTalk 21:48, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

My response to that would be to go ahead and move the page. (And Transcend AGF and such?) HaloTalk 23:19, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Degen.   Swizz Talk   Events!   08:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support Request for Rollback, but opppose the quiz - Per Degen. It'd be nice to have a centralized page. Suppa chuppa Talk 16:02, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How's this? HaloTalk 23:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer mine. While you can expect people like me to read through the entire thing, I'd be willing to bet that most others won't. (For example, my proposal paragraph was much shorter and even that was too long for Degen). Mine is a lot shorter. --LiquidTalk 00:18, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Then please tell me what the hell the one-page thing is because I'm getting sick of getting that same freaking argument. HaloTalk 00:19, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
And yes, I expect people to read the whole thing. If you aren't committed enough to read that, you don't deserve or need rollback. HaloTalk 00:21, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, you do have a point. I don't read titles, just the text, and didn't see that it was taken from Rollback examples. If that's the case, then it's fine. --LiquidTalk 00:23, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
I copied all the pages people need to read (since transcending would have gotten messy), because I thought that's what everyone on this thread is supporting. HaloTalk 00:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Degen. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 00:09, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We have given our 'Crats these tools because we trust their ability and to make a choice that will reflect the betterment of the wiki. I'm sure they always take the time to ensure they are doing what is beneficial for the community. This wiki is becoming a government, full of policy and rules...and it's absolutely disgusting.

Bonziiznob Talk

01:19, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the 200 edits/30 days (like I think you are-and I have no idea where Liquid pulled 500 from), or some other part of this? HaloTalk 01:21, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yeh the only thing this page does is make it all on a central page and make it easier for the crats. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:25, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
That part I am fine with actually. It's the added additions of checking that I take issue with. That's not the only thing being proposed here. HaloTalk 01:31, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've removed the checking part, since I suppose it doesn't really facilitate matters. How the page is designed is something that I don't really care about; I just want some kind of central index so that users don't need to ask on 10 talk pages before getting a straight answer. --LiquidTalk 01:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Changed to support, as seen above. This is reasonable, and a much better system overall. The rough page layout is in my usersubspace "Notes". Feel free to edit that to whatever (as it is rather long-and possibly repetitive). HaloTalk 01:50, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

{{closure|Discussion has died}} svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:36, September 21, 2010 (UTC) {{Rfc}} Matt (t) 04:47, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Rollback is now requested at RS:RFRB. --LiquidTalk 13:45, October 23, 2010 (UTC)