Forum:Rollback

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Rollback

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5944 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So recently we've started giving out the rollback right, which, for those of you who don't know, just allows a normal user to see/use [rollback] links like an admin. There are no limits on this at Uncyclopedia (Wikipedia has a 5-per-minute throttle, because the so called experts <3 inefficiency).

Anyway, I think it's high time we started handed this out a bit more liberally. Olipro's (and whoever elses scrips are floating around there) are great, but they are slower and cause more of a drain on the servers than real rollback.

Bureaucrats can give and remove rollback using Special:Userrights, so unlike adminship it can be removed without the need to bother staff.

Anyway, after a few discussions on IRC, it seems that two options keep being suggested; that we give rollback to users who are unsuccessful in a VFS final (admin confirmation) round, or that we establish a requests page like Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for rollback.

Anyway, what does everyone think? — Sir Manticore 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote!

Give rollback to users who are unsuccessful in VFS final round

Score: +9

• For. We don't need Wikipedia's bureaucracy here, and this reduces the likelihood it would ever need to be removed for abuse because the users that get this far are highly trusted. — Sir Manticore 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why not? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:11 Jun 29, 2008
• yep   Le Cejak • <2:33, 29 Jun 2008>
• Sure. -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't bother me. - Unlike sysoppage, which could be abused to potentially disastrous effect, (pause here to cackle madly for effect) rollback in the hands of even a vandal wouldn't be that big of an issue. It's a mostly harmless power when used for evil, so I see no reason not to hand it out fairly liberally. Anyone disagree? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:58, Jun 29
• Yes /me sits and waits for rollback. -RAHB 09:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, UN:NOT#Bureaucracy. -- Jack Phoenix, professional killer admin (Whine?) • (Wikia ♥ ads) 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• No -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
•  Hello Kitty. I just like to be different.--<<>> 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fishcakes --Charitwo^Talk 14:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes Per Manticore. It would be best if this power were granted without a user needing to ask for it. There should also be nothing to stop a bureaucrat from granting this power at any time to any user they consider suitable. I don't understand what Mhaille's objections are... MrN 14:50, Jun 29

My objection is this....say, for example someone "evil" uses a load of sock accounts or equally "evil" friends to get themselves to the second round of voting? At that point our vigilant admins judge that person not suitable for sysophood. However we've then put in place a proceedure where they end up with rollback rights. Who can say what nefarious plans they have up their sleeves? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Ahh, I hear ya. Well, I think everyone would agree that any granting of rollback should (ultimately) always fall under the control of the person who is actually going to issue it. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that rollback will always be granted based on a VFS vote. Discretion should always be used. I would hope also that if something like the situation you described above did happen then we would notice it, and cancel the votes anyway. In the end, the decision must lay in the hands of the crat. If they believe the VFS vote to be genuine enough, then rollback would be granted. Also, from what I understand it's not difficult to remove the right if a user has been shown to be not suitable for it. MrN 18:31, Jun 29

• Nah. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:17, 29 Jun 2008
• Sure, I guess. Although the notion that all users that "get this far are highly trusted" is pretty faulty. Nevertheless, rollback isn't something very different than what users can already do by editing old versions of pages, and this seems like a pretty good way to hand it out. -- The Zombiebaron 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• For - I can't really see any downsides to this to be honest (Bonner) (Talk) Jun 29, 17:45
• Nope - I can see plenty of downsides, much better that current admins decide whether they think the person is deserving or nots. - Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) (>>)
  QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
  [06:36 30 June]
• Comment: to limit the chances of Mhaille's scenario occurring, how about tweaking it slightly to be "give rollback to users who are unsuccessful in VFS final round but did receive, say, at least one vote from the admins? --UU - natter 08:55, Jun 30

  Under_user's got a good point. I'll cast a vote for that too, with the caveat that it should be two admin votes. -- The Zombiebaron

  Going back to Mhaille's scenario...what possible bad things could the rollback power do that a user with limited wiki experience couldn't already do? Anyone that wanted to abuse that power already could be snagging the .js for it, and the only way I could see rollback being used for evil is by picking some "good" user and reverting all their contributions--annoying to put them all back, but for another user with rollback it would take the exact same amount of time. Besides, an unknown-ish user undoing all the edits of a well-known user would be more than a little obvious in recentchanges. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:14, Jun 30

Establish a requests page like Wikipedia has

Score: +8

• Makes sense. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:11 Jun 29, 2008
• yep, also   Le Cejak • <2:33, 29 Jun 2008>
• Yes. I can has? Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yepper. -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't bother me. - Unlike sysoppage, which could be abused to potentially disastrous effect, (pause here to cackle madly for effect) rollback in the hands of even a vandal wouldn't be that big of an issue. It's a mostly harmless power when used for evil, so I see no reason not to hand it out fairly liberally. Anyone disagree? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:58, Jun 29
• Also Yes Give the 'crats a little work to do ;) -RAHB 09:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 14:06, Jun. 29, 2008
•  For.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Against --Charitwo^Talk 14:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Bad idea.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• For - Also a good idea (Bonner) (Talk) Jun 29, 17:45
• For - Cause I want it, damn it! - Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) (>>)
  QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
  [17:58 29 June]
• Hell no to more voting pages. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:15, 29 Jun 2008

• I never understood why people are against voting pages... I guess it could get out of hand if you're voting on every edit, but voting for people to have rollback rights? What's the big fucking deal?   Le Cejak • <18:55, 29 Jun 2008>
  • Who would vote? Everyone? In which case we would all need to put the same amount of effort into looking for socs that we do with the VFS page... We need to keep things as simple as possible I think. MrN 19:05, Jun 29

• Wait, this is for a voting page? I thought it would be more like what we have on pages like, say, ban patrol, where you just list what needs to be done, and somebody comes along and makes a decision based on it. I don't think any voting is really necessary for that. It's all up to the discretion of whatever 'crat comes along and sees the requests. – Preceding unsigned comment added by RAHB (talk • contribs)

• Yeah, that was how I envisioned it, too. It'd pretty much be the bureaucrat that checked the page's job to decide who got rollback. If it's gonna be a voting page then switch my vote to against--we already have to fucking many of those. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:02, Jun 30

• Against if any voting is involved. If it just involves a 'crat keeping it on their watchlist and saying yes or no, then maybe. (Is that vague enough?) --UU - natter 08:52, Jun 30
• For: Personally, I say don't ever bother with voting on it. Methinks if someone knows their way around enough to find out about rollback and figure out where to ask for the right, they're probably paying enough attention to have a sense of some of our rules and policies. The easier it is for people that know what's up to revert IP spam, the better in my book. --Sir gwax (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Leave it as it is

Score: +1

• I thought we already discussed this. Pretty much anyone who wants it can already ask for it, and probably get it. Don't see what's wrong with that. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:18, 29 Jun 2008

  Does it not say somewhere that users should not ask? Most don't ask for fear of being accused of "power whoring"... There are also currently only 3 users with rollback, that does not look like anyone who asks getting it to me. MrN 16:38, Jun 29

  No, it doesn't say that anywhere. Did you consider that only 3 people have actually asked for it? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:14, 29 Jun 2008

•  Against. per MrN9000   Le Cejak • <16:41, 29 Jun 2008>
• As unpopular a position as it seems currently, I like the status quo. VFS is an anomaly this month due to the lack of active voters at the moment allowing certain users who will never get near the second round again a chance to sneak in, there's normally only 3-4 there. Most of these will be veterans of the second round due to the current (non) balance between experienced users and oppages. And VFS is only four-ish times a year anyway. So rollback granting will be very throttled after the six-person (relative) orgy of this month. And VFR would just be more needless bureaucracy on a site that already has 10^34 voting pages. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 29/06 21:37

Give rollback to users on the whim of a Bureau

Score: +10

• I'd like to see something that harkens back to how VFS was originally run, with the Cabal saying "hey.....X has shown maturity and mental stability levels such that rollback rights should be granted to them", and then the Cabal mulling it over for a prolonged period, talking about the pros and cons, and so on and so forth, before the additional powers are given to said individual. Also, VOTE for Mugabe! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
•  Mugabe because the 'crats should be able to do whatever they want. Oh wait, they already do!   Le Cejak • <15:43, 29 Jun 2008>

• 16:58, 28 June 2008, Rcmurphy (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Cajek (Talk | contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) (insubordination) —rc (t) 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• they blocked my fucking email!!!   Le Cejak • <17:21, 29 Jun 2008>

•  Yes This as well as the VFS thing. MrN 15:51, Jun 29
• For - This would also prevent people constantly begging for the rights through any request page that should arise. (Bonner) (Talk) Jun 29, 17:45
• Me like. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't bother me. - Unlike sysoppage, which could be abused to potentially disastrous effect, (pause here to cackle madly) rollback in the hands of even a vandal wouldn't be that big of an issue. It's a mostly harmless power when used for evil, so I see no reason not to hand it out fairly liberally. Anyone disagree? (How many fucking times have I copy-pasted this now?) - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:12, Jun 29
• For -RAHB 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• For either this or the status quo. The 'crats tend to know if users are decent enough to make proper use of such a function, and as Led says it's not like it can be used for any truly evil purposes. Against any more voting pages. --UU - natter 08:51, Jun 30
• I always felt it's a good idea to suck up to the crats. Long live Codeine. And that other nice English lad. What was his name again? Something to do with mail...~ 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• FORE! I like this idea, and it could prevent a clogging of requests if we allowed for it. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 01:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hell with the rules, just Give Me the Damn Rights

Score: +4770

• Fucking hell, give me that crappy rollback function, this .js rollback is a fucking piece of crappy shit. - Guest2817 01:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

while we're on the subject...

We can haz rollback NOWS!

NOW

NOW

NOW!!!!

WHERE'S MY ROLLBACK?!

How about now?

Can I have rollback privalages? I've asked several times before descretly and it never really got very far, and I've never really cared that much. Normaly I'd be fine with the js but I recently tried to make it work on my iphone and figured out I had no idea what I was doing. So, unless anyone wants to go make all the scripts iPhone readable, this would be re next best thing. I do t really care if its voted on or given by the first crat that wanders by, and everyone and their dog knows i've been here long enough to know how to use it. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 17:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like actual rollback as the js sometimes shits out on me and is often very slow and irritating. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You lose just for having an iPhone :P • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:05, 30 Jun 2008

I also want rollback, and a big sign that says "FU Spang." --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 18:09, Jun. 30, 2008

I hear someone's giving out free rollback? I have a coupon here for "buy one get one free". Can I still use that? Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but see, your free rollback rolls back the first rollback. So you're kind of back to square one. —rc (t) 05:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also also like rollback, as I hear that it's kinda useful (Bonner) (Talk) Jul 2, 10:51

 Strong BONNER — Sir Manticore 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I get one of those every time I watch porn. The church priest assures me there's no correlation, but I think he's lying. (oh, and if it weren't too much trouble, I'd like some rollback too please) -RAHB 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 false I don't want it, mostly because I still don't understand what you weirdos are talking about. Seriously, I don't. And I don't want it explained either.   Le Cejak • <1:33, 03 Jul 2008>

Rollback reverts other people's edits. HAH! I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU! RUN! RUN AWAY! TRY TO WASH THE MEMORY OF IT AWAY! TRY TO WASH AWAY THE SHAME!!!!! -RAHB 03:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I rolled your mom's back. Oh, I went there.   Le Cejak • <13:00, 03 Jul 2008>

So, are these requests going to get looked at ever by anyone? Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at them right now. Gotta say, they're pretty boring. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 04:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's liven it up then shall we? - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That worked. Happy Fourth of July!! Patriotic edits PEEING 05:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, now even the kids want it!

Rollback granted to those requesting it above and on my talk

• (User rights log); 10:40 . . Codeine (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:Starnestommy from (none) to rollback: roll up roll up)
• (User rights log); 10:37 . . Codeine (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:Heerenveen from (none) to rollback: and may allah bless you)
• (User rights log); 10:34 . . Codeine (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:Boomer from (none) to rollback: and a happy hannukah)
• (User rights log); 10:34 . . Codeine (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:Dexter111344 from (none) to rollback: merry christmas)
• (User rights log); 10:33 . . Codeine (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:THEDUDEMAN from (none) to rollback: rollback for all!* (*except vandals and morons))

If I've missed anyone, let me know. And use it wisely; remember the book of Wiki Chapter 1 verse 19 : "The Bureaucrat giveth, and the Bureaucrat taketh away." :P -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, so you have to ask? In which case... CAN I HAZ ROLLBACK PLEASE? MrN 10:56, Jul 3

I would like it too--Sycamore (Talk) 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

fine: gimme, gimme, gimme... please?   Le Cejak • <13:26, 03 Jul 2008>

I would also like rollback, please. I need it for... uh... helping to cure cancer. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:47, 03 Jul 2008

*Hovers over Spang's sig* GAHH OH GOOD LORD IN HEAVEN *Falls over crying* (Bonner) (Talk) Jul 3, 15:09

I would also be liking of this rollback. I CAN HAZ? - Sir FSt. Yettie (talk) (>>)

QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise

[15:54 3 July]

I is got rollback! Yay me! --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's weird, as I don't remember asking (myself). Thanks though! ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 3/07 16:29

You didn't. But, out of all of us who did get it, I see you using it the most. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked for rollback, oh powerful Codeine. I can haz? -RAHB 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I already got rollback, but can I have another? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:32 Jul 03, 2008

/me rolls DrSkullthumper back -RAHB 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Also hassle Mhaille, he should do more bureaucrat stuff. </lazy> -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would like rollback. And I'd also like to get bot status while you're at it. -- The Zombiebaron 16:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't grant bot here unfortunately. --Charitwo^Talk 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So the bottom line of this whole debate

Is that we have a crat that loves whoring his eternal power! All hail Codeine! ~ 09:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)