Wikia

Narutopedia

Number of Rollbackers

  • So I checked the list of people who have rollback powers and there are about half of the users there who aren't actually active here any more. Would it be a good idea to prune the "inactives" from the list so that it looks more like we're actually giving the power to active users ? Discuss below and use the voting templates for your decision: {{Support}}, {{Neutral}} and {{Oppose}}.

      Loading editor
    •  Support

        Loading editor
    •  Support — , because why would a user need special rights if he isn't using them?

        Loading editor
    • Who are all those rollbackers who aren't active anymore? Is there some kind of list?

        Loading editor
    • All the registered users with "INACTIVE" to their username I guess.

        Loading editor
    • That doesn't mean that those have rollback powers though.

        Loading editor
    • On the link Elveonora provided, just select the Last Edit and it will put it in oldest -> newest form. Basically everyone on the first page of this are inactive editors.

        Loading editor
    •  Oppose — I don't think that is necessary at all. In the same manner that they don't need it because they are inactive, it does no harm that they keep it. You never know if they might decide to become active editors again, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't still have the tool they assisted the wikia with before. Having 100 rollback users isn't an issue, the more pressing concern is the fact that we give it out so willy nilly.

        Loading editor
    • @Cerez: There are two rollbackers who really don't need those permissions. User:Kadaj22 and User:Rasengan888: both haven't logged on in years so I doubt they would care if they lost the perm. Plus, if they came back and wanted to have the perm restored, then an existing rollbacker can do just that. I would agree with you, if rollbackers weren't able to restore rollback flag.

        Loading editor
    •  Support

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the list Elveonora. It's sad to see that so many good editors don't come here anymore, especially those who really did a great job in the past...

        Loading editor
    • Still don't really see the sense in removing them. Is this going to carry through for all other inactive persons with flags? I don't really oppose this as much as I don't find it a necessary action.

        Loading editor
    • I would assume so, but the only inactive people with flags are rollbackers anyway. All sysops are pretty active here, Dantman is sporadically available but doesn't really participate so it's hard to get ahold of him tbh.

        Loading editor
    • Dantman ist the founder, isn't he? There is no way we could do such a thing to him...

        Loading editor
    • Idontcareaboutmyname wrote: Dantman ist the founder, isn't he? There is no way we could do such a thing to him...

      No, he's not the actual founder. He simply adopted the wiki from the true founder: User:TranClan, since TranClan made a few edits, then left the wiki to die. Personally, I think one additional crat would be beneficial, at least we're not TES wiki and have about 5 crats.... most of which are inactive.... :/

        Loading editor
    • Like to bump this thread to see what other people are thinking.

        Loading editor
    • Don't think we need another bureaucrat. If you were here before or even read earlier threads Dan actually hated the fact that his edit count was higher than actual editors. He'll more than likely never be an "active user" since he's more the type to let the wiki do it's own thing until/unless he is needed.

      With regards to this topic, I think I've moved from opposed to neutrality. Still don't really see the need, but I wouldn't have a problem if it were done. If only to manage the amount of persons in the Rollback group here.

        Loading editor
    • True. Just as a note, the people with rollback flag gain additional rights within the forums and can edit other people's posts, so this may be something to be aware of when granting out the rollback flag.

        Loading editor
    • I Just want to point out that this is a situation one would have to ask Dantman about.

        Loading editor
    • Rollback isn't a special flag, letting inactive users keep it doesn't do any sort of harm. The only reason it's not given to everyone universally is cause the quick 1-click, no reason, multiple-edit reverts can be used irresponsibly by casual users. It's not really something you lose by going inactive.

      Removing rights of piles of users is actually a huge hassle. There's no way to do it in bulk, so for each user you have to go to their user rights page, either by first visiting their contributions or by manually typing their name into the special page, tweak the rights, type/paste a reason, then submit. With the lack of downsides for leaving rollback on a user regular bulk removal of rights from a pile of users is actually a pretty heavy burden to add to sysops.

      ((Protip, the row added to the logging table to log changes to a user's rights is larger than the user_groups row removed to take the rights away. ;) So ironically when you remove a right you just make the database larger, not smaller))

      Now then, I have to finish a tiny bit of work and then get to sleep so I can go to Anime Evolution's J-Fest mini-convention that starts in 9.5 hours.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for setting that straight and enjoy.

        Loading editor
    • Cerez365 wrote: ... You never know if they might decide to become active editors again...

       Oppose — I sometimes become inactive for months, then get active again.

        Loading editor
    • Well, looking through the list of rollback users, looking only to last log in and last edit, I'd revoke rollback rights from the five bottom when listed by last log in, that is: Norleon, SuperN, NejiByakugan360, Rasengan888 and Kadaj22. IndxcvNovelist, you were completely absent for almost a year. When you're active, it's only for about two or three weeks, then you disappear into the aether again. You don't stay long enough to actually use rollback. I'd also consider removing AlienGamer. He has a recent log in, but his latest edit was last August. I believe that is due to him being an active admin in another wiki.

        Loading editor
    • @IndxcvNovelist, is something taken away from you that you would rarely even use of your concern? For example, I don't use rollback either and it isn't mandatory for edit reversal, it just makes it easier. There haven't been many edit wars as of late anyway, so there wasn't much use for it. Please, someone come to vandalize the wiki so we rollbacks are of use "joke"

        Loading editor
    • Dantman wrote: Rollback isn't a special flag, letting inactive users keep it doesn't do any sort of harm. The only reason it's not given to everyone universally is cause the quick 1-click, no reason, multiple-edit reverts can be used irresponsibly by casual users. It's not really something you lose by going inactive.

      Removing rights of piles of users is actually a huge hassle. There's no way to do it in bulk, so for each user you have to go to their user rights page, either by first visiting their contributions or by manually typing their name into the special page, tweak the rights, type/paste a reason, then submit. With the lack of downsides for leaving rollback on a user regular bulk removal of rights from a pile of users is actually a pretty heavy burden to add to sysops.

      ((Protip, the row added to the logging table to log changes to a user's rights is larger than the user_groups row removed to take the rights away. ;) So ironically when you remove a right you just make the database larger, not smaller))

      Now then, I have to finish a tiny bit of work and then get to sleep so I can go to Anime Evolution's J-Fest mini-convention that starts in 9.5 hours.

      I realised I never responded to this, so I'll do so now.

      When I was suggesting removing people's rollback rights, I was only suggesting it for really inactive users. As it stands, there are about 6 users who are totally inactive and haven't visited the wiki for a while (aka before 31st January 2014). That isn't a lot of users and would make the list more current and consist of actual users who are active.

      Essentially what Omnibender said though, there's no point in having people with rights when they've "moved on", so to speak.

        Loading editor
    •  Support

        Loading editor
    • Elveonora wrote: @IndxcvNovelist, is something taken away from you that you would rarely even use of your concern? For example, I don't use rollback either and it isn't mandatory for edit reversal, it just makes it easier. There haven't been many edit wars as of late anyway, so there wasn't much use for it. Please, someone come to vandalize the wiki so we rollbacks are of use "joke"

      I still use rollback since I edit the wiki. Like you said, it makes the edit reversal easier. I know why you don't use rollback since you edit on talkpages only. But still, I disagree removing number of rollbackers.

        Loading editor
    • 54.205.122.62
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki