Narutopedia talk:Rollback

User rights

I don't know, maybe these pages should link to the User group rights page? That way, the visitor of the page can see what the ones with those rights actually have the right/ability to do when searching for e.g. 'rollback'. Hakinu ^{talk | Contributions} 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

inactivity

FYI, Jacce is not the only user who removed inactive rollbacks. Omnibender has done it as well. I would appreciate that the information about keeping active be left in there, it is not a policy but a guideline. Just because a user is inactive for 3-4 months does not instantly mean their rollback will be removed, or are you suggesting that rollbacks that have become vandals should keep their rights anyway? --Sajuuk _[Mod] ^{talk | contribs | Channel} 22:13, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of discussions in the forums about it, and that the consensus was there's no reason to remove rollback based on inactivity. If someone decides to do that on their own then that's their thing, not the wiki's. ~SnapperTo 22:22, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

No, I believe that was about sysops, I don't believe there was ever a consensus about rollbacks. Like I said, it's not a policy or something, just a tip of recommendation, hence why it says "liable to lose it", it doesn't say "you will lose it". Just like how the 3RR says you "might be blocked", not "you will be blocked". It is up to the sysop to decide if they want to remove the rights or not, it is only a guideline/recommendation. --Sajuuk _[Mod] ^{talk | contribs | Channel} 22:25, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

The point is that a user should never feel pressured to contribute. Policy or guideline doesn't matter; if it says somewhere that someone should do something every x amount of time, there's someone who will take that literally.

And, as Dantman has said before, user rights are cheap. Adding or removing them for reasons of inactivity alone serve no purpose. ~SnapperTo 22:56, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Why would stating a recommendation cause someone to be pressured into contributing?

If a user takes it literally, then they don't need the additional rights: we've already removed the flag from several users who contribute, at most, an edit or two every 3-4 months, even without a "recommendation".

Yes, rights are cheap, but I don't wish for users to have rights they no longer need. I'll reiterate: there's nothing wrong with stating a recommendation, just because it says "we expect users to be active or they'll lose rights" does not mean they will lose the rights. It's only there as a guideline and recommendation. So I'm putting it back in, there's nothing wrong with it. --Sajuuk _[Mod] ^{talk | contribs | Channel} 08:42, April 12, 2015 (UTC)