On 12/13/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
My belief is that in general we should not remove
things from page
history so easily.
My belief is that in general we should be aggressive about removing
vandalism from the page history. If there was an automated way to go
through on a regular basis and remove reverted versions from the
history, I would strongly support that we do so.
I think that getting that set-up should be a top development priority. One idea:
A bot with sysop rights could be able to detect admin reverts fairly easily and delete
both the
vandalized versions that were reverted along with the admin's revert version (which
would be
pointless clutter at that point). The bot would use the text 'Reverted to last
version by..' along
with checking the reverting person to make sure they are an admin. The bot would only
delete
versions that are older than a week and would need to. This would clean-up page histories
a great
deal and get rid of most of the libel and slander in them. Then, as needed, a human admin
can
delete more versions since a great many reverts are not done by admins. A more
sophisticated admin
bot could compare diffs to detect reverts (using the comments 'Reverted to last
version by..' and
'rv' only to identify diffs to check).
Bad idea. I don't know about other admins, but I use rollback for
things other than vandalism and linkspam, such as widespread
implementations of bad ideas. Most recent case: someone had modified
the wording of about three dozen stub templates in a way that implied
that a particular wikiproject had ownership over the articles in
question.
--
[[User:Carnildo]]