Archived talk: Old RFA discussion | Old RFB discussion
Rollback rights?[]
What are rollback rights? What can a user do who has a rollback right? Is it something related to reversion? - TopAce 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It gives a user access to the admin tool "rollback" (one click reversion). --Imp 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that tool is most useful. - TopAce 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that needed? I mean, is it that much harder to go to history, and save a previous version? I think it should be an admin-only power. Chack Jadson 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's necessary for images though. - JMAS 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Chack Jadson 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image reversions can be done by any user, and has nothing to do with rollback rights. It probably should...but that's something we'd have to talk to Wikia staffers about. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well...why is it needed as a special power? Chack Jadson 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's faster. G.He(Talk!) 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not like using history takes three minutes. Why can't we just wait for an admin to get on if we can't spend 10 seconds to revert? Chack Jadson 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- If there were vandals mass-vandalizing, it makes it much easier to revert using rollbacks, because the rollbacker could just go to the vandals contributions and open all the rollback links in new tabs instead of editing each and one of those pages. Also, there are times where little/no admins are active/around, so it makes it easier for other trusted members to revert vandalism and maintain it that way until an admin does arrive. G.He(Talk!) 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. Still, it should be limited to very few users. Thanks GHe. Chack Jadson 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- If there were vandals mass-vandalizing, it makes it much easier to revert using rollbacks, because the rollbacker could just go to the vandals contributions and open all the rollback links in new tabs instead of editing each and one of those pages. Also, there are times where little/no admins are active/around, so it makes it easier for other trusted members to revert vandalism and maintain it that way until an admin does arrive. G.He(Talk!) 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not like using history takes three minutes. Why can't we just wait for an admin to get on if we can't spend 10 seconds to revert? Chack Jadson 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's faster. G.He(Talk!) 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well...why is it needed as a special power? Chack Jadson 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image reversions can be done by any user, and has nothing to do with rollback rights. It probably should...but that's something we'd have to talk to Wikia staffers about. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Chack Jadson 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's necessary for images though. - JMAS 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that needed? I mean, is it that much harder to go to history, and save a previous version? I think it should be an admin-only power. Chack Jadson 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that tool is most useful. - TopAce 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why should it be limited to "a very few user?" I think the more trustworthy users have this power the better. - TopAce 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nominate[]
How do I nominate a user?ruusan 17:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming you have their permission, set it up like this under the appropriate "rank":
User Name (0 users + 0 admins + 0 bureaucrats / 0 users + 0 admins + 0 bureaucrats / 0 admin)[]
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends (whenever) 2007.
Support[]
Oppose[]
Neutral[]
Comments[]
Chack Jadson Talk 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, no self-nominations. IOW, a user has to be nominated by another user.. -Fnlayson 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- We must emphasize the need for having their permission. Otherwise, it might just set a user up for embarrassment. -- SFH 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
okay, thanks. sorry for being a noob.ruusan 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Question removal[]
Why were some of the questions removed? Granted, they held no relevance to the actual candidate's eligibility, but they added a bit of much-needed, lighthearted humor that is altogether lacking in most areas on this wiki. Ah well... —Xwing328(Talk) 06:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I want to see those questions put back simply for the humor. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 07:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Humor is only humor for so long. Those questions have been there since 2005. If you want humor, get some new material. --Imperialles 09:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)