GuildWiki talk:Rollback

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


ad hoc granting[edit source]

PanSola decided to Be Bold and start giving out rollback, so if you suddenly find yourself in possession of new tool for no apparent reason, don't be surprised.

Also, I have arbitrarily decided that all sysops get rollback. Power trip ftw. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All sysops have rollback, keep looking at the sandbox RandomTime 06:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The sandbox is a lie [castle] Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Just want to, for the sake of record, note that if any Bcrat hands out a rollback flag, especially to someone who didn't request for it, to inform them to read GW:ROLL. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mascot[edit source]

Rollerbeetle Racer Dance.gif

"Now make like a beetle and roll!" Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 08:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just discovered rollback *is* actually more powerful than regular edit[edit source]

In situations where the existing article already contains a link that the spam filter rejects, somebody vandalizes the article, and you try to revert it, a regular edit (or Undo) would get blocked by the spam filter, whereas a rollback would work. Personally, I think this type of "more powerful" is ok, but this discovery makes it no longer technically correct to say that the rollback doesn't do anything a regular user cannot do. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a spam filter? Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a wikia thing. Blocks certain external links. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's a MediaWiki thing, which for some reason uses a default WikiMedia foundation list, mostly populated by links being added to Wikipedia. So it results in random odd domains being blocked (somebody trying to advertise their own forum or whatever on Wikipedia getting an entire domain spam-filtered here). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I ran into this a lot when I was running the build redlink bot. Now I finally know what to do (MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist) if I run into it again. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge note.[edit source]

I guess merging account doesn't merge user-rights. I noticed the rollback link disappeared on RC when the GW-Viruzzz account got merged into this one. I don't need it back or anything, I just thought it would be worth noting. may cause some confusion with higher and more important user-rights if they ever need to merge be merged Viruzzz 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "kick the bureaucrat" is a necessary step of that procedure. ;) --◄mendel► 12:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage for one edit[edit source]

I was looking at RC, and I noticed Ish using rollback to undo 1 vandalism edit. I feel that using the history is more appropriate for reverting one edit, as it allows more controle/reduces the risk of f*ck*ng up. Reverting one edit using history is also not THAT much more trouble that using rollback.

I realise this might sound like whining, but I really hope to fuel a debate here... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While I understand your point about possibly reverting more than you intend to, that usually isn't a problem.
  • Spam/vandalism is almost always performed by new users/IPs who have never made any useful contributions in the past. Obviously, it's possible that an IP with a history of useful contributions could be reassigned to a spammer/vandal, but it is very unlikely.
  • Personally, I never use rollback directly from RC. I always view the diff first (I view the diff on pretty much every single edit anyway), where I can both verify that it is actually spam/vandalism and check that the previous edit was by a different user.
I agree that rollback is really "at its best" when an article has been vandalized repeatedly, but I don't see a problem with using it for single edits. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I rollback single edits since you can hide the edits by flagging them with bot=1. It fits quite nicely with QDV. --JonTheMon 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
To the GuildWiki fellow editors, this is how I view Rollback... I never undo or rollback any edit via RC. I use as Ish does - the differences and in other words the changes that are made, etc. to determine it's best to use rollback or undo. Undo for those like an Ip placing in or changing some words as some of the "discussions" that we had, such as Frostmaw's. Rollback for those that are clearly advertising, etc. and that it's not anything related to the article, etc. Some things are easy, for the "difficult choices" I prefer undo to not make a "mistake". I don't think it should be based on how many times, but rather for it to be based on what it's about. -- Ariyen 23:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
@Jon, the bot-rollback feature only works for users who are also sysops. It's a convenience feature for the rest of the community since bot edits are hidden from RC by default.
Overall, there really isn't much difference between a manual undo and a rollback besides convenience (except when you accidentally rollback twenty edits). You can't enter an edit summary with rollback, but there's usually no need as long as the community trusts all the users who have the privilege: we don't need a written-out explanation because we trust your judgment. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I usually DO use it from RC, but only after checking the difference, for which I just open a new tab, check it and close it again. I know this sounds weird, but I feel it's faster somehow (I know it probably isn't). And yeah, I do use it for single edits, in fact, most of the vandalism is either just a single edit to a single page, or a single edit to multiple pages. And once an IP or user is a "confirmed vandal", it's very easy to just rollback all his latest edits through RC. If it's just a single edit, it's still a lot faster than reverting. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)