Forum:Addition to deletion policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Addition to deletion policy
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 December 2010 by Calebchiam.

Due to the outcome of Forum:Allow sysops to use revisiondelete, I believe we need to add a little addition to RuneScape:Deletion policy. My proposed addition is as follows:

Deleting page revisions

In addition to deleting whole pages, administrators also have the ability to selectively delete revisions and edit summaries from article and file histories. This should be used only in the following circumstances:

  • The revision contains extremely offensive material. This includes graphic text descriptions or very large amounts of offensive language. Administrators are reminded to use common sense when deleting offensive revisions.
  • The revision contains hazardous or offensive links. This includes links to inappropriate images or sites, as well as links to potential phishing sites or sites that advocate breaking the Rules of RuneScape.
  • The revision contains personal information or personal attacks. This includes addresses, phone numbers, names, passwords, or other personal information. Severe instances should be reported to Wikia staff so that further action can be taken.
  • The revision contains changes that can be hazardous to those viewing it. This includes revisions with changes that may cause lag or browser instability.
  • Certain copyright violations. This includes blatant copyright violations, DMCA take-down requests, or other formal requests filed by Jagex or other companies.

Page revisions can also be deleted for other reasons when deemed appropriate by community consensus. If you feel that a page has a revision that needs to be deleted, please leave a message linking to the revision on RuneScape:Administrator requests.

That's all folks. Please discuss additions/changes. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:15, November 27, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nom. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:15, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Didn't that get added to a policy when crat's got access to the tool? anyone it all looks good and makes sense. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:17, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of, probably because it was only a few users that were using it. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:19, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
There was a discussion here but I'm not sure exactly what the outcome ended up being. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:26, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It should just read that large amounts of text (enough that browsers are crashing) should be hidden, not just offensive large amounts of text. Also, you can stop your little bureaucracy support nonsense. We obviously need rules and you have a good base to start with, so changes can be proposed from this point. HaloTalk 03:35, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Added a piece about large amounts of text ("This includes revisions with changes that may cause lag or browser instability."). Also, what do you mean by "you can stop your little bureaucracy support nonsense"? --Aburnett(Talk) 03:42, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
We obviously need something like this, so there is no reason we need "support". It's obvious it's going to happen, it's just a matter of the specifics, which is what this thread is establishing. If anyone wants there to be no restrictions on when it can be used, they mine as well leave now. HaloTalk 03:51, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
I was just supporting the way I had drafted it, it had nothing to do with adding it or not. I'm assuming Sentra was doing the same. We need some basis to see if people agree with how this addition has been drafted out. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:55, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I was supporting his "rules" that he came up with. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:16, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - List looks fine, all I say we should really need is RS:UCS, but it always does seem to cause less issues when everything is written out. :3 svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:18, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nominator. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 04:20, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Though I have an issue with the point which reads "Certain copyright violations. This should always be discussed with the community before any action is taken." I don't think that's a good idea. No one will bother to get consensus to delete a single revision, and asking them to do so is pretty silly. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:40, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Very good point, I reworked it with some verbiage from here. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:56, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the previous thread, I believe this bit allows for redaction of logs. To be honest, that is more deserving of a policy providing for its use than simple revision deletion. Otherwise this is fine. (wszx) 05:58, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks good to me. Andrew talk 06:28, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like it. Although I thought this was already covered in the deletion policy. <.< --AzurisProblem, wiki? 06:48, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nice, simple, to the point and pretty much covers anything. 222 talk 07:43, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per nomnomnom. Real Mad 12:02, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Might be worth mentioning that revdel also applies to file histories too, otherwise looks fine. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:38, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Halo, quit trying to cause trouble. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 18:21, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Partial support - Per Psycho, copyright violation part is not really practical. Remove that part and we are fine. bad_fetustalk 18:51, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Partial strong support, neutral on Psycho's point - I don't really see a problem with copyright violations, but the rest is good. Except.... lag? You want to delete a revision because it causes lag? Browser instability, sure, but lag? Matt (t) 21:54, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

If a browser lags, that can cause a browser to stop responding. It's happened to me several times. Real Mad 22:15, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yah, this would be referring to severe lag. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:56, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:40, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Full support given, no opposition. Discussion has pretty much stopped. Per RS:SNOW. I swear it was 7 days... 222 talk 01:06, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The proposed changes have been made to RuneScape:Deletion policy. C.ChiamTalk 04:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)