User talk:Dirael

Smash Wiki stuff
I'm putting this here so I can respond to your posts (hopefully) without getting extraneous comments from other users. If after we've discussed it you would like to move it that is fine. Anyway, the point about the rollback before sysop was an idea based on Semicolon's RfA proposal whereby a current sysop or bureaucrat would need to approve the nomination before allowing the user the ability to run for sysop. This is only necessary due to the ridiculous number of pointless RfA's that popped up last June. This was why Randall eventually shut the whole thing down. You know my feelings on this, so I won't go into them further here. To prevent the useless number of RfA's that would pop up, I thought that there needed to be some kind of mechanism to prevent that. I wasn't foreseeing there being the same speech/vote process that there was for RfA in RfR's. I'll see what I can do about ironing out the process. Also, the reason that I feel that seeing what people do with the rollback status will show somethings about how s/he will act as a sysop. If the person uses the rollback powers as a way of making an edit war easier and try to say that they can do that as a rollback, it's a good sign that if s/he is made a sysop s/he will misuse the tools. Also, I had hoped that there would be more discussion before we just up and did the RfRs. I did the RfB as directly told to by Kirby King, and modeled it off the RfAs. KP just up and made the RfRs without consulting anyone simply because he wanted it. As for your question about someone becoming a bureau without becoming a sysop, I don't see the reason that someone, in an established wiki such as ours, should be simultaneously given adminship and the ability to confer said adminship in one feel swoop. It's really a minor point, and I mostly did it for the sake of consistency with what the established ideas on the wiki are. If the community wants it changed, that's fine. I hope this answered most of your questions. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the part about using it to stem the pointless RfA's make sense (enough for me to not WoT, anyway :P ). But it brings up an important point. There are quite a few users on SmashWiki that I would not ever trust to be an administrator (Oxico, KPerfekt are the ones on the rollback page atm) but I would fully trust with rollback rights. Therefore: Are you giving rollback only to people who could possibly be considered for sysop, or are you using it as a reverting tool? Because I don't really see how it could be used for both; users like KPerf who likely not ever get sysophood can make as many pointless RfA's as he wants, because he could be trusted with rollback.
 * I still don't get how rollback shows the whole trust thingy. If they abuse rollback, they could have just as easily abused the undo button; if they don't abuse the undo button, what's the point of wasting the time to see whether or not they abuse rollback? :/ (This assumes that rollback is used as anti-vandalism and not sysop req.)
 * I was under the impression that you were going to be the one making the RfR page, which is why I let the subject die out; I was waiting until you made the page before I criticized it too much :P
 * I agree that admin -> bureau is a minor point, even if I disagree with what it is. It's unlikely enough that a candidate that would be considered for both at the same time that I don't feel compelled to make a novel over it. If I'm going to pick my battles, this wouldn't be one of them. --Shadowcrest  21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see your points here. The rollback before sysop was just an idea I had and threw out.  It hadn't even been discussed before KP (now rightfully blocked) up and did it.  As for the sysop before bureau, the reason I have that as a limit is that if someone who shouldn't be a sysop was made a bureau they could just up and make themselves a sysop.  As for the current RfAs and RfRs, I'm trying to get to them in time.  This week is pretty open for me so I should be able to get to a lot of it (hint: expect a new tool to fall into your lap).  I'll try to clean up the RfAs.  The RfBs probably aren't going to be of importance, as Sky and Fyre have shown no interest (and even some disinterest) and Randall and Charitwo have failed.  Any input you have on the RfA's would be great.  Also, don't use the e-mail me feature.  It goes to a phantom account of mine.  I almost never check it.  If you need to contact me, get my full name (be creative, you'll find it) and use the format "first-last@uiowa.edu" and you'll be able to reach me.  Thanks Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't fail, it was pretty much an involuntary withdrawal because of IRL issues (women and all). But I would have liked to have put more effort into it if I was able to. I just wanted someone to get the position, and it seems you were the perfect person to fill the shoes. --Charitwo (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Short version
* are Clarinet Hawk's points, ** are rebuttals, etc.
 * Implement rollback as a sysop requirement in order to reduce the # of RfA's from users that aren't qualified for anything more than a revert tool.
 * If rollback is only granted to candidates that could potentially be sysops, the # of poor RfA's stays low but users that can benefit from rollback (the revert tool) but should not have sysophood don't get rollback.
 * If rollback is granted to all users won't abuse it as a RV tool, combating vandalism is easier for a lot of people but the # of unqualified RfA's will be back at it's previous standard.
 * The process for rollback should not be an all-out RfA style nomination.
 * Rollback makes for a good "test period" to make sure users w/ rollback won't abuse sysop tools.
 * Users that abuse rollback could have abused reverts just as easily with the undo button, so denying rollback is nothing special.
 * Users that don't abuse the undo button will in all likelyhood not abuse rollback, thus wasting the trial time.
 * Adminship should be a requirement for bureaucratship.
 * Their jobs are too different to make one a pre-requisite for the other.

Extraneous comment
Using RfR this way is an oblique way to adress a problem that'd better be solved directly one way or another (or that's sized up wrong). --◄mendel► 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Bureaucrat at Smashwiki somehow not have access to sysop tools? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. You cannot say a bureaucrat's role is different from that of a sysop when a bureaucrat is ALSO a sysop. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All current bureaucrats are sysops, but theoretically it is possible to be one and not the other. See [here]. --◄mendel► 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a kind of weak bureaucrat status... unaffected by rate limits. Neat. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 06:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

so i herd
Lord Shadowcrest Failmore III is moving up in the world. :> (T/C) 04:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * U herd rite tbh. Though it's only rollback :P --Shadowcrest  04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you consider that the only person who is in rollback group on GuildWiki is me, that's quite a promotion :p [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So I herd u liek rollback rights.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]reanor 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 2 on Smashwiki, but it's tacked on to sysop. Quite lame :P --Shadowcrest  04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First
Supposed to be, at least. 05:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk archive 5 is filled with red links of wub. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Laziness always comes back to bite you in the ass, doesn't it? --Shadowcrest  05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice fix. :p There's nothing wrong with laziness, I like to blame MediaWiki code instead. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, except I know for a fact it broke because I typed out /placeholder instead of User talk:Shadowcrest/placeholder, so it doesn't really work here :P --Shadowcrest  05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Promotion Party
Cheers, and thanks to everybody who congratulated me! --◄mendel► 06:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome! --Shadowcrest 06:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one doesn't get promoted every day! --◄mendel► 06:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

lolwut imo
nobody sent me a log. wtb. --Shadowcrest 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)