On 12/13/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@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]]