GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Register
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[/Archive/]]
 
[[/Archive/]]
== Rollback can hide ==
 
   
  +
== ad hoc granting ==
See [[m:Rollback#Bot_rollback]]. --[[User:M.mendel|◄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." —[[User:Dr_ishmael|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. -_- —[[User:Dr_ishmael|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]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|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]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|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. --[[User:M.mendel|◄mendel►]] 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::::So is the assumption that rollback will be a sysop+ power? --[[User:JonTheMon|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. —[[User:Dr_ishmael|Dr Ishmael]] [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::Ah, it's clear now. --[[User:JonTheMon|JonTheMon]] 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 
   
  +
PanSola decided to [[GW:BB|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.
== 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 [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:I concur. <!-- But I'm too lazy to edit the policy proposal myself. --> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|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. --[[User:M.mendel|◄mendel►]] 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 
   
 
Also, I have arbitrarily decided that all sysops get rollback. Power trip ftw. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|C]]) 06:24, 7 November 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. --[[User:Shadowcrest|<font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest</font>]] 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
+
:All sysops have rollback, keep looking at the sandbox '''[[User:Randomtime|<font color="Orange">Random</font>]][[User talk:Randomtime|<font color="Black">Time</font>]]''' 06:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:I concur. &mdash;[[User:Dr_ishmael|Dr Ishmael]] [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
+
::The sandbox is a lie [castle] [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|C]]) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::Thirded. '''[[User:Wizardboy777|<span style="color:#CD2626;">&not; Wizårdbõÿ777</span>]]'''<small>([[User talk:Wizardboy777|<span style="color:darkcyan;">talk</span>]])</small> 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 '''[[User:Randomtime|<font color="Orange">Random</font>]][[User talk:Randomtime|<font color="Black">Time</font>]]''' 18:48, 3 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 [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:45, 7 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 <s>diatribe</s> eloquent reasoning, don't let me keep you - it's not an issue I want to fight over. --[[User:M.mendel|◄mendel►]] 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 
   
 
== Mascot ==
::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)
 
   
  +
[[Image:Rollerbeetle Racer Dance.gif]]
:::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]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|C]]) 01:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 
  +
 
"Now make like a beetle and '''roll'''!" [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|C]]) 08:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Just discovered rollback *is* actually more powerful than regular edit ==
  +
  +
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 [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 
:We have a spam filter? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] ([[User_talk:Entropy|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Entropy|C]]) 22:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 
::It's a wikia thing. Blocks certain external links. '''[[User:Wizardboy777|<span style="color:#CD2626;">&not; Wizårdbõÿ777</span>]]'''<small>([[User talk:Wizardboy777|<span style="color:darkcyan;">talk</span>]])</small> 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 [[Image: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. &mdash;[[User:Dr_ishmael|Dr Ishmael]] [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Merge note. ==
  +
  +
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 <small>[[User_talk:Viruzzz|<font color="Black">Viruzzz</font>]]</small> 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  +
:Yeah, "kick the bureaucrat" is a necessary step of that procedure. ;) --[[User:Mendel|◄mendel►]] 12:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Usage for one edit ==
  +
  +
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... [[User:Arnout aka The Emperors Angel|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. &mdash;[[User:Dr_ishmael|Dr Ishmael]] [[File:Diablo_the_chicken.gif|link=User_talk:Dr_ishmael]] 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. --[[User:JonTheMon|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. -- [[User:Ariyen|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. &mdash;[[User:Dr_ishmael|Dr Ishmael]] [[File:Diablo_the_chicken.gif|link=User_talk:Dr_ishmael]] 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. --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]][[User:El_Nazgir|<font color="Green">'''El_Nazgir'''</font>]] 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:46, 9 February 2012

Archive

ad hoc granting[]

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 (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 (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) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mascot[]

Rollerbeetle Racer Dance

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

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

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) 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a spam filter? Entropy Sig (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) 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 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge note.[]

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[]

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 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 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)