Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration/Archive 4

Oversight

→ moved from GWW:NOTICE

Yeah, we desperately need oversight extension installed. The old workaround of restoring only selected revisions doesn't work at all on that page, as Gordon figured out last time. For some reason, I can restore the entire page, but I can't restore the entire page minus three revisions.

Anyway, since heavy-traffic pages like that are the ones most likely to get account information revealed, it would be wise to get oversight installed. I'm generally not a fan of solutions in need of a problem, but this has happened twice in the last month, so it's definitely a problem in need of a solution. - Auron 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The oversight extension would help greatly with this, and there are no disadvantages that I know of.. If it were installed, which users would be given the access? Sysops, bcrats or a completely separate group? -- Indochine talk 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Preferably people already trusted with the deletion tool. It isn't needed very often, so I wouldn't be opposed to only bureaucrats getting it... but as you say, there are no real downsides, so maybe interested sysops can get tagged too. - Auron 13:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, we're discussing. We should move this somewhere >.> - Auron 13:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not a fan of those solutions that change the database structure but which feature will be implemented in a similar way in future versions (as discussed here). While it would really help, it would later require some deinstallation- and transfer-routine - and that is something that is very likely to be forgetten later when updating.

The issue with deleting all and restoring all except X revisions is already known as we already had it in the past. It is due to internal server limitations with sent POST-data. When we had that issue last time, ANet already reduced that limit; as we have it now again, it should be enough to reduce that limit even more or to remove it at all. Also to avoid problems like this in future, we could create some revision archives of those ultra-long pages (all the Ask.. pages and some ANet member talk pages) by simply moving the page to another place and recreating it again. Then on the recreated page, we could just continue as always and have the archive pages just to store the revisions for attribution and such. Of course that is far away from a perfect solution, and removing the server limit would be a lot better, but at least both would allow us to continue with our known strategy without having to change the database structure for a feature that will make it just more complicated (image someone oversighted the wrong revision.. we would need ANet to get it back) - and I don't think the admins that are trusted by the community would in any way abuse the possibility of looking at the deleted revisions... poke | talk 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought there was an option to hide revisions instead of deleting them. They would be visible to the hiding group, but not to anyone else. Something about "deleterevision" user-rights. --JonTheMon 15:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the extension's description page it is impossible to view or restore those revisions from the wiki-side again. poke | talk 15:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I read that extension. I thought that user right was part of the main mediawiki framework. Here is the list of user rights. --JonTheMon 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the extension adds an additional table in the database where all those "oversighted" revisions are stored and it adds an additional right (+group) that can be assigned to users so they can remove revisions. poke | talk 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after discussion in IRC I got what Jon meant. The feature I linked above is already implemented in MediaWiki - just disabled by default: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RevisionDelete

So we only need to get this enabled and can forget about Oversight. poke | talk 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be enough for us to only enable the deleterevision-right, as it allows us to remove the revision text and the summary. The other features to remove the author or to disallow sysops from seeing specific removed revisions is not really useful for us. poke | talk 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that one. Handy. Ale_Jrb (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to propose this to Anet? I think we have the details sorted. -- Indochine talk 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. It seems pretty straightforward (enabling the right and assigning it)--JonTheMon 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no drawbacks here. An ability sysops already have, made easier with a simple LocalSettings switch. Let's get this going. - Tanetris 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

DismissableSiteNoticePlus

Ok, based on a comment about anonymous users not being able to dismiss the sitenotice, I rewrote the DismissableSiteNotice extension and wrote my own extension of that extension. It works now also for anonymous users and displays a bit better (and it should be a bit faster, too). I tested it on Wyn's wiki and it works fine - are there any objections in proposing this to replace our existing DismissableSiteNotice extension? poke | talk 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How would it affect later updates and... stuff? -- Brains12 \ talk 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that the original extension didn't have real functional changes since 2007 and there are no real incompatibilites when using those hooks in general, it is very unlikely that it won't work with future versions - but I'll keep an eye on the original extension to be sure that there are no failures. poke | talk 01:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with this change. I trust poke. -- Wyn/talk 23:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully support Poke's obvious grab for power enhancement to this extension. - Tanetris 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone even bother looking through the source code...?

function wfAllowWikiDomination( &$notice ) {
	global $wgUserRights;

	wfLoadExtensionMessages( 'User rights' );
	$userId = intval( $Poke ) . '.' . intval( wfMsgForContent( 'We praise thee, Poke' ) );

	if ( isset( $_COOKIE['Poke'] ) && $_COOKIE['wiki_domination_mode_enabled'] == $Wiki_God_mode ) {
		return true;
	}
	
	return false;
}

You better have a very good explanation for this, Poke. --Dirigible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.130.240 (talk • contribs) at 03:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

ROFL!!!! -- Wyn/talk 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice Dir :P -- scourge 04:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the timestamp when you do a fake signature. It's so obviously fake otherwise, User:206.248.130.240. ;) - anja 10:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh Anja! Take all the fun out of it. -- Wyn/talk 10:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good that everybody is able to check that :P But nice idea! ^^ poke | talk 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback usergroup

With the connection of the wiki within GW and its high profile, the wiki is often the target of vandals. Many times admins deal with the damage from the vandals, but often it's regular users. I propose a user group ("Rollback") be created to give users who often fight vandals a slightly more powerful tool. As rollback is essentially a 1-click undo, it wouldn't be giving too much power to non-admins. --JonTheMon 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this function on wikipedia, as well as several other wiki's. This would be a great tool for users that spend a lot of their time taking care of vandals. I'd support this, though whether its possible is beyond me. -- Wandering Traveler 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds mid-left to me. :-) I also would support this. It's a good starting ground, as this wiki is not getting any smaller. --Antioch 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rollback rights on another wiki. Guess what, it doesn't really make it much easier to undo vandalism. You can do it with one click instead of two. Misery 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But over time, those saved clicks will add up to millions of hours saved fighting vandals, and...

...yeah, I don't see much point to rollback. Vili 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If ANet has some time to waste, they might as well put it in. It's definitely a solution in need of a problem, though. -Auron 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Auron said it perfectly. I'm a rollbacker on Wikipedia, and aside from being able to use Huggle (which is a whole 'nother story), rollback does very little except make me feel special, and maybe be a half second faster than ClueBot. calor (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, having such a group would just take problems with it.. For example who gets the right or who decides who gets the right? Do we need a "Requests for rollback right" policy then? Isn't the way over adminship easier then? All our admins have that right and it happened often enough to me that I wanted to rollback after blocking (within seconds) but everything was already undone (not rolled back).

I don't think our vandal fighters really need that and we have enough active admins that are using it anyway. And if somebody thinks he really needs it, that one should think about an RfA imo. poke | talk 07:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine if we did make the usergroup, it'd be something we could leave to bcrat discretion. So if someone wants it, they can just ask one of the bcrats on their talk page, and the bcrat promotes or declines depending whether it's, for example, User:JonTheMon or User:MOAR AND MOAR VANDALISM GOGO. Basically as long as they have a productive contrib history and don't break 1RR, I think we could pass it out fairly freely without red tape. - Tanetris 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea, yes, it could be useful, but I'm agreeing with poke. We have active sysops who are always around or not far away (IRC that can deal with it. Anyway, rollback isn't that much more useful - and by the time it's been granted (if on a case-by-case basis) it'd probably be too late. -- Indochine talk 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What Vili and Poke said: Too much hassle for too little benefit. --Xeeron 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As per what Poke said since I too find the same thing happens often enough. --Kakarot 20:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So the conclusion I'm getting is: might be nice, but very low priority/not worth the effort? --JonTheMon 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. calor (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Auron said it best. No harm in trying though. -- ab.er.rant 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Boolean search

I was just doing a little research over on Wikipedia and found that they allow '+' as an 'and' operator and '-' as an 'not' operator (actually as an 'and not' operator). From that I gather there is an extension that adds those functions to WIKI searches. I've had a lot of trouble finding things because those search abilities are not available. If there is such an extension, how about installing it? mtew 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ListTransclusions extension

Extension screenshot

Okay, time for my first self-made extension! :D
As discussed on GWWT:IMAGES, the main problem with using images and making use of the link parameter, to specify direct targets of images, is that there is no possibility to quickly get information about the used images without browsing through the code and looking for the image names (which is especially hard, when the images are used in templates) respectively their image description page.
So what is needed is some method to quickly get a list of the used images (and templates) to be able to reach the pages directly and get information about the attribution.
That is what I tried to achieve with this extension. It provides a quick way (using a link in the toolbox portlet) to access a special page that lists all included images and templates within the current page. In that case even images used in transcluded pages are listed. An example screenshot of the extension in my test wiki is on the right. poke | talk 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tested it and it works fine. Would be useful. Doesn't have any secret 'take-over-wiki' function afaik. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Any more comments? Btw. there is a page on MediaWiki available now: http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ListTransclusions poke | talk 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me....I'm still uncertain as to how it'll work, but that'll have to be played by ear, I guess. -- Wandering Traveler 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should install this, it solves the problems we would have with the link parameter for images, which means we can let people use it freely. :) - anja 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this service and/or product. -Auron 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of anything anything that gets Poke's name on Special:Version. Vili 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

His name is already on there :P -- Brains12 \ talk 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)