GuildWiki talk:Rollback

/Archive/

Rollback can hide
See Rollback. --◄mendel► 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So it basically flags both the vandalism and the rollback as bot edits, interesting. That's definitely something to consider when handing out rollback rights, then - would the user abuse this feature?  Example: "I really hate User:Foo, so I'm going to follow him around and bot-rollback every single edit he makes."  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Bot" rollback feature is confirmed for user with Bcrat flag, and confirmd for user with Sysop flag. It is confirmed to NOT work with accounts that only have the rollback flag.  So it can only be abused by Sysops and Bcrats.  The observation is consistent with the language of the linked article, where it said "admins may..." when describing the special feature of the roll back tool.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally missed that word when I read it. -_- &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like if a sysop/bcrat abuses the rollback, that also puts their other powers in question. Hmm. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we start a separate conversation about "Bot-Rollback" to avoid confusing the issue with the regular rollback? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since 99% of the time it is non-sysop/bcrat who does mass vandal reverts, I don't think it is much of an issue. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that, I wasn't sure whether I had interpreted the language wrong (the author could've thought that typically only admins have rollback). So it's basically a non-issue in the context of this proposal. --◄mendel► 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So is the assumption that rollback will be a sysop+ power? --JonTheMon 14:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sysops+ already have rollback as part of their power "package"; the whole point of the rollback group is to expand that specific power to non-sysops. The discussion above is about a feature of rollback that is only available to sysops, sparked by my initial confusion that it was available to everyone with rollback.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's clear now. --JonTheMon 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To Recap
Among the stuff archived, the question of whether to make it a (semi-)formal process or completely informal is not conclusively decided. I would like to suggest making the language of the article super painfully clear that the Rollback flag is only an access to a short-cut tool, and not a special user status; also that any user who has been determined to have abused the tool should lose it for life (no second chance, but can appeal on the previous case). I would like to claim that with those two points added to the article, it should eliminate any drama arose out of good faith (malicious drama can always be created regardless of how many layers of precaution we take), and thus the granting of Rollback flag can be a complete informal process. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought your recent edits to the proposal are clear enough on that point; that consequences should not be discussed/decided in advance, but rather as a case arises; and that Shadowcrest's objections had been met. --◄mendel► 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

implementation
Now that all objections seem to have been cleared and no dissenting points unresolved, I would like to move that this policy be accepted as is. --Shadowcrest 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thirded.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll let this declaration sit for one more day just in case. (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * /agree with that! Fi-na-lee Random Time  18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggestion from the previous section has been implemeted over my opposition, namely, the clause about losing rollback rights forever when you screw up once. (Even our block doctrine isn't as harsh). The only people who can re-grant are Bureaucrats, the most trusted people on the wiki; if we can't trust them (including Pan himself) to handle the handing out of a tool that we agree an editor can do little mischief with, we're sunk anyway.
 * I say we cross that bridge when we come to it; this talkpage already states that you're not likely to get rollback again if you screw up, and the rest can be regulated by evolving a custom before commiting it to policy. If you're still for it after my diatribe eloquent reasoning, don't let me keep you - it's not an issue I want to fight over. --◄mendel► 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Edited so that only the "informality of asking for rollback" might be lost indefinitely due to abuse of rollback. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed that part. I think someone made an oversight writing it. Rollback < sysoption, and we've given that back at least once. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I oppose re-granting without formal process, and I wanted to keep rollback granting informal. That's why it was worded like that originally. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. In that case I like the current rewording, and I agree that it's unlikely it will be an issue anyway. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)