Forum:Add rights to the Custodian usergroup

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Add rights to the Custodian usergroup
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 December 2010 by Stelercus.

Since sysops were given the revisiondelete ability in Forum:Allow sysops to use revisiondelete, there are now effectively two levels of content hiding. The lower level uses regular delete/restore, while the higher one uses revisiondelete.

I believe that having two levels to do exactly the same thing is redundant and unnecessary, so I propose that we give our custodians a few more rights. I'd like custodians to receive browsearchive and deletedhistory, which allows them to view deleted content and deleted history entries, respectively. This will not allow them to delete/undelete pages, so please do not use "mistrust" as a reason to oppose.

With the addition of revisiondelete, any edits that really should not be viewed (like edits with personal information or those that cause a lot of lag) will be revisiondeleted and cannot be viewed. However, I think that the ability to view deleted content will be useful for custodians, who perform maintenance quite often.

The main area that this will be useful is in files. When files are deleted, sometimes the deletion reason isn't included in the deletion summary, or people want to go back and double check that the file was not improperly deleted, or perhaps to check where the replacement file destination is. With these new rights, custodians will be able to do just that, and won't have to go looking for a sysop to check.

Of course, this can also be used in mainspace to check the content of deleted pages to ensure that nothing important is lost, and to move any good content to another appropriate page.

I really don't see any downsides to this, since I think that our custodians are trusted enough and mature enough to handle looking at some of the more egregious edits that have been deleted but not revisiondeleted (edits with highly immature/adult content, for example). The benefits far outweigh any potential harm.

Discuss. --LiquidTalk 04:35, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 04:35, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom, especially the file maintenance part. Being able to see the deletion request, where a link to the replacement file is often located, is very useful. 222 talk 04:37, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Custodian rights revolve around file maintenance, mostly, and with the speed at which images can get tagged and deleted it won't hurt to have some more eyes able to look through them. Riblet15 04:44, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Can only make maintenance faster. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:28, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There's nothing bad that can happen as a result of this. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:59, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - That would be very helpful. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:56, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No downsides. LordDarkPhantom 09:22, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Although we should continue to be careful about giving custodians too many rights. ʞooɔ 11:11, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - When I was sysoped, I found that viewing deleted files do that I could find a suitable replacement was one of the handiest things I could do. Custodians can make good use of this. --Aburnett(Talk) 12:30, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I can see no downsides, so if it helps anyone at all it's a good move. :3 svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 16:05, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I had always found it annoying that only sysops could check deleted st00f. bad_fetustalk 16:42, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Agree with you chess. --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 06:44, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - They are trusted + that may not be the best admins, but they are trusted. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 18:23, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - why not? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:12, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is based on a flawed premise. There's nothing different about deletion with the new bit, it just makes deleting specific revisions easier: you don't have to delete the whole page and restore specific revisions, you just delete individual edits (and logs!) from the history page. You are confusing the new bit with suppressrevision and hiderevision, which allow for hiding a revision from administrators as well as everyone else. Those bits have effectively replaced oversight, and according to Special:ListGroupRights, only Wikia staff have them. If you give custodians deletedhistory and browsearchive they will be able to see everything that has been deleted by admins here, whether deleted under traditional delete-everything-restore-selectively or delete-specific-revsion. (They won't be able to see what Wikia staff has suppressed, but then neither can admins.) So while that may be desirable, just be clear on what you're proposing. (wszx) 19:38, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

According to Charitwo, users with deletedhistory and browserarchive rights can't view revisions deleted with revisiondelete. ʞooɔ 19:59, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Admins on en have those rights and they can view edits deleted with it. Wikia's use of the extension might be different, though. It's also worth noting that if we don't want custodians with these rights to be able to access revisions deleted with RevDel because of personal info, they would still be able to view everything deleted up to this point, as well as anything deleted in the future under regular deletion. So we'd have to delete the super-sekrit stuff with RevisionDeleted every time if we wanted to hide it from custodians. (wszx) 20:01, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Looking at some more pages, it is possible that he is right. You may need deleterevision to see things which have been deleted that way, because it might be distinct from the traditional delete/restore setup, and deletedhistory and browsearchive may only work with the latter. To my mind this is strange and would be an oversight in coding, but it may be that way nonetheless. We would really need to talk to someone who was involved in the coding or has access to all relevant tools and can test it conclusively. Aside from this, though, my second point still stands. LH seems to want this to aid in simple maintenance while making sure all deleted personal info (and related) is still only viewable by admins. Irrespective of whether they would be able to see stuff deleted with RevDel, they would be able to see everything deleted until this point, including all personal info deleted in that time, as well as anything in the future that admins forget to delete with RevDel. Also, these two bits may not allow users to see the deleted text, RevDel question aside: one two. (As an interesting point, this exact discussion was had on en wiki at some point and rejected because it would open up deleted private information to non-admins.) (wszx) 20:38, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Cook is right. RevisionDelete hides revisions, even from groups without revisiondelete. Hence why our admins couldn't view revisions hidden by crats. ajr 00:32, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's a good idea, I guess, but it seems completely unneeded to me. Seriously, what use would they have for it? Browse through deleted pages during their spare time? ajr 00:32, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Something tells me you didn't read the proposal. Read paragraph 4 again. --LiquidTalk 00:40, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
I have. I still really don't see a need, especially since they aren't able to do anything about deleted content anyways. ajr 00:42, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well, if sysops delete files without specifying the replacements (I know both you and I have been guilty of this) or if they want to check that no important content was lost, this would be extraordinarily useful. I know for sure that I don't go through every file I delete because there are simply too many of them. I only check the suspect ones. --LiquidTalk 00:48, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I suppose it might be used productively once a year, and that is all that it needs to be to be useful. ajr 00:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Once a year still matters. At least no sysop will see "Pwease chweck the Fwile:Bukkit.png's deeleetion lawg and e-mwail mwee a schweenshwot. Thwank You" at RS:AR. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:38, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
...I do believe that I just said that. ajr 01:58, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
...And I do believe I was just commenting! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 04:53, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
FYI: "I just said that" means "That is what i said" so not like "i was just doing that...(...for fun/...because i liked it". So Ajr means: "You are now repeating me". JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:29, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
And I do know that too. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 13:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As above, particularly as the first three supporters. OriginaLuigI 22:49, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

User has made less than 50 mainspace edits --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 13:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
There is no edit requirement on yg. bad_fetustalk 13:36, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support per above, but we must realize what we are doing - Any user that has enough edits can just request this. Usually they'd have to be somewhat established and trusted by the time they get custodianship, but not necessarily. Just thought I should raise that point. ^_^ Matt (t) 08:47, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Custs normally only get the rights when they do know what they are doing, and if they are abusing it, they will probably get it removed very quickly. Imo, browsing trough deleted content needs less trust than moving files. Browsing will not change anything to the content of the wiki, while moving files does. Or am I wrong here? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:51, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
You're right. HaloTalk 20:27, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - More eyes means better maintenance, who knows what could be picked up by custodians? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Murph notes My only concern with giving custodians more user rights are that I fear this will be used as a reason to not support future RFAs. "Oh, they can already do practically everything anyhow so it is pointless to make them a sysop". Yes, I am aware that the thread on not using the "we have enough sysops" argument says that that is invalid, but people would use it anyway and just use a different statement to back their oppose, or simply not comment on the RFA at all. Well there it is, just some rambling thoughts from self.--Degenret01 14:00, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... ye i seen that on the RfAs after adding cust usergroup, but i don't think adding the fact they can browse deleted content would make this happen more. Are there really a lot of RfAs that have the argument "i wanna browse trough history of deleted content"? Don't think so. Therefore, i don't think this will be a big deal concerning RfA reasons. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:51, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Wikia will be notified of this thread as soon as I get around to writing them a message (which will be in about ten minutes). I do not believe that the failure of the RevisionDelete thread has a significant enough impact on the arguments that I presented in the proposal to derail this, so I will be going ahead and requesting the additional rights. If anyone wants to complain, please do so now. This will be left open temporarily for Wikia staff to weigh in if they so wish. --LiquidTalk 23:09, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Done. But a request, please make this the last tweak for a while... the support team is going to be somewhat short of time and hands over the Holidays. Thanks :) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 18:09, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

No pls. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:15, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The changes have been implemented. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:15, December 16, 2010 (UTC)