Forum:Allow sysops to use revisiondelete

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Allow sysops to use revisiondelete
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 December 2010 by Degenret01.

Hi all, I'd like to propose that Administrators be given the deleterevision right. This right, in any group except for oversight, was designed to replace the conventional delete/restore with only some revisions, and can be used for hiding various offensive content, amongst other things.

There is a lovely misconception around Wikia; that RevisionDelete was designed to replace the oversight right. Quite to the opposite, RevisionDelete was designed to compliment it by providing multiple levels of hiding content. The right was designed to be enabled for both the sysop group, and the oversight group. At the sysop level, the extension was intended to be used simply as a replacement for delete/restore to hide certain content, such as spam links or harsh language. In the oversight group, or more specifically with the oversight right, it allows a further level of protection; the ability to hide the revision from sysops as well as all other users. It is at this level only that RevisionDelete is meant to hide personal information, etc.

I think that it makes sense to allow our sysops to use this tool as it was intended to be used. Please discuss. ajr 20:52, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Duh. ajr 20:52, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sure. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:56, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Can't argue that logic. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 20:57, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Been wondering why sysops haven't had it so far. Add another right to their extensive list. Ryan PM 21:02, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I thought sysops already had that :O bad_fetustalk 21:03, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Hooray for marginalizing crats! ʞooɔ 21:04, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - However we need to add some policy on using this. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:04, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

A section in RS:DELETE would probably be good enough. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:15, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
He has a point, we need to discuss when it should be used. bad_fetustalk 21:25, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense. SardominSign Me! 21:45, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I never figured out why RevisionDelete would require a layer of trust beyond that needed for all other sysop tools. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:23, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Exactly per Saradomin. Matt (t) 22:33, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no point to this. If we give sysops revisiondelete, then everyone who is able to delete normally is able to use revisiondelete. That effectively makes revisiondelete obsolete, since anyone who is able to see a revisiondelete hidden edit can see a deleted edit. Thus, delete/restore has exactly the same effect. The same usergroups (sysop and bureaucrat) will have the exactly the same rights. I see no need to give sysops an additional right that we do not need; we might as well remove revisiondelete from bureaucrats if this is an issue. --LiquidTalk 23:04, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

For those obnoxious spam edits that are designed to crash browsers you can delete that edit so when stalking page histories you don't experience browser failure. Deleting the page gets rid of all revisions, while revision delete deletes 1. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:07, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Delete the page and restore every edit except the spam edit. That way, it doesn't show up in page history either. If the edit is only revisiondeleted, then it still shows up in page history (albeit crossed out and unable to be viewed). --LiquidTalk 23:09, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
That way gets rid of the history. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:10, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but if it's revisiondeleted, you can't view the edit anyways, and anything bad enough to be revisiondeleted is something you don't want to see. --LiquidTalk 23:12, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Message:"You been banned for disruption, as seen in your contributions." Vandal: *clicks the contributions link* "What edits?" svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:14, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who has been blocked surely knows what edits he or she has made. Delete/revisiondelete isn't used except in the most extreme of circumstances, almost always involving large amounts of spam. That is simply impossible to do by accident, and anyone who knows enough code to do that knows what edits he or she has made. --LiquidTalk 23:17, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
It will also help with "bookkeeping". svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:19, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read my proposal liquid? I quite clearly stated how this core feature is intended to be used. Also, you've never seen/used the interface before, so how can you pretend to know how it works? As I said in the proposal, it exists to make deleting revisions easier, and there are many cases in which that would come in handy. ajr 23:42, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
"Anyone who has been blocked surely knows what edits he or she has made." Not for shared IPs... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:34, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:17, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Easier and quicker to delete certain revisions. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 23:19, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. Andrew talk 23:23, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - No. Will be abused. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:31, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

RS:AGF All of our sysops have been through a community discussion to decide whether or not we trust them with the tools, so that is unlikely. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:35, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
I can see Liquid's point of view, but I don't get yours at all. What is there that can be abused with RevisionDelete that can't be done using regular ol' delete? If we can't trust our sysops not to abuse their tools (which I don't think is the case), then we have a big problem. ʞooɔ 00:22, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
What Cook said. If a sysop abuses this, they will lose their tools. Simple as that. Matt (t) 00:25, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
If Bob was a sysop and deleted the main page's revisions, would it be able to get restored? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:48, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
...Yes. P.S. MY BROWSER BLOCKS FLASH AHAHAHA --Iiii I I I 01:51, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
...Oh ****. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:54, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
RevisionDelete is lovely since it can be undone with as many clicks as it takes to activate it. ajr 01:59, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all supporters. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 23:40, November 19, 2010 (UTC) 

Support - Per above. The Admins are trusted enough not to abuse this (too often :P). - [Pharos] 02:10, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • Just as a point: if this right is akin to the one on en.wiki, the bit also allows for redaction of logs. That may not be relevant but it seems to have been omitted in the proposal. (wszx) 05:36, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
What does that ave to do with Pharos statement?--Degenret01 05:59, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it does, wszx has a rather confusing habit of adding a bullet point at the start of every comment. 222 talk 06:02, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I certainly do NOT trust all our sysops judgement with such a tool. Some of them are way too easily offended by the simplest of terms and will use their prejudices to influence what is subject to revisiondelete whther it meets the criteria or not. All of our crats are a bit older, wiser, and more experienced in a bit of the real world than some of our sysop user group. Rather than pick and choose who among our sysops can be trusted it is safer and simpler (and yea, AEAE) to deny it to all before it becomes misused.--Degenret01 05:59, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a page of guidelines for this tool then? - [Pharos] 06:04, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
There is a current set of criteria that must be met before a crat can use it.--Degenret01 06:19, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
While I understand and agree with your concern, I believe you haven't quite realised all the details of what is to be proposed. This isn't meant to allow sysops to use revisiondelete as crats currently can, it is for creating a new level of revisiondelete, a lower tier one, for sysops to use for maintenance purposes. If a sysop revisiondeletes something in the currently proposed system, then it will be no different than if they deleted the whole page then undeleted all but the revision in question. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:15, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Will it show that an edit had been left out? Will we be able to restore it if another feels it should have been left in? --Degenret01 08:55, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
We could always have another usergroup just for this tool. Matt (t) 09:06, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
If you don't trust some of our sysops with this tool, I would think that you would not trust them with most of the others. If that is the case, than the solution is to request that person be desysopped. For the sake of wiki policies, we have to assume that all administrators are trustworthy and unbiased. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:37, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry man, but that is a crazy ass statement. Trying to get people desysopped becuase I do not trust them would be a nightmare that would result in tons of angry wikidrama with zero results. People practically have to go on screaming rages tantrums to get desysopped here. Instead it makes more sense not to give them additional tools. And I am trying to clear up exactly what this tool would do anyhow.--Degenret01 14:12, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
The page for it on MediaWiki.org. Does that clear up what the tool would do? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:22, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that all this extension does is make deleting revisions faster. Sysops can already do this, but it takes longer. So are you saying that you can't trust our admins with the ability to delete pages? That presents a bit of a problem... Also, absolutely every action with revisiondelete leaves an entry in the deletion log, as well as a very obvious partial-omission from an article's history or log. Any other admin can view it with one click, and restore it with two others. ajr 15:19, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, currently qwhen a sysop deletes something, anyone else can restore it. I like that. I do not like the idea that a sysop can delete and only another sysop or crat can restore it.--Degenret01 16:15, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
...I thought that it would be pretty obvious that anyone else, including the sysop that deleted it, can restore it. But since it wasn't: Anybody with the deleterevision right can delete/view/restore any revision. Unless the also have the oversight right, in which case they can hide that revision from users without that right. ajr 17:12, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
What a ridiculous statement, Degen. You automatically jump to the conclusion that certain sysops will become trigger happy every time they're offended. I certainly haven't seen that happen with the current delete-restore method. Andrew talk 15:49, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Settle down Andrew. I do not think they would use it every time. And how many bloody effing times do I have to repeat I am trying to find out more about this and how it can/will be used? JC your always so quick to be angry and jumpy. Relaaaaaax. It is good for you. Breeeeeeeeathe deeply.--Degenret01 16:14, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere have I even implied that I'm the least bit upset. If I say something is ridiculous, that's nothing more than stating my opinion. I would appreciate it if you didn't talk to me like I'm a toddler. Andrew talk 23:42, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by this: "Okay, currently qwhen a sysop deletes something, anyone else can restore it. I like that. I do not like the idea that a sysop can delete and only another sysop or crat can restore it.- Degenret01"? Currently only sysops and crats can restore a page that has been deleted. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:26, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yeeeeaah, im wondering about that too... We can't do that last I checked... - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 00:12, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. 222 talk 06:02, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as there are two levels, one for sysops only and one for crats only, I don't see any harm in allowing sysops to access the lower tier. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:15, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "two levels"? Matt (t) 09:00, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it is possible to do that without giving crats the oversight right (or hiderevision, can't remember which). Either way, crats are currently doubling as both bureaucrats and oversighters, which is kinda wrong... what we could do, though, is ask Wikia if three bureaucrats/people other than me can be added to the oversight group, and it be given revdel. ajr 15:37, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it seems I got confused. Well I don't care if both "levels" are part of revisiondelete, or if its two separate user groups. I just want crats to be able to hide revisions in such a way that only crats and staff can unhide it/see it. If there is a way to accomplish that while still allowing sysops to use revisiondelete, then I fully support. As this preference isn't really a strong one, if it can't be met I shall just be neutral. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:56, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Sentra. Ruud10KRalph.png 07:08, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per above supports. --AzurisProblem, wiki? 11:12, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

oppose - There are a couple of unnamed admins that i don't trust with the revisiondelete. They will probably use if when someone said something they might consider a little offensive, for example, user A says to user B "what you are saying there is pure crap" and that should not be deleted. If user B is an admin, he might be so offended he removes the edit, which he shouldn't(of course there are more offensive things that should still not be deleted. I think admins just don't know enough when they should use it and when they should not. As it is kinda pointless to make another usergroup with this function only, i just oppose. Then as an answer to "what could it do more harm than regular delete?": You don't delete a talk page, but with revisiondelete, they might delete a comment, which both should not be done. Revisiondelete just has too much difference with regular delete to automatically trust admins that we already trust with regular delete. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:26, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense. RevisionDelete quite literally is no different than regular delete, except that it's faster. If a sysop wanted to delete a certain revision, they could do it right now. With about 8 clicks. This brings it down to say, two. It's the same action we can already do. This is not some incredibly special new tool at all. If there are admins that you don't trust with RevisionDelete, then you should not trust them with delete, and that is a problem. And our sysops are smart enough and know policy well enough not to violate DDD or anything stupid like that. By the way, terrible example. I am really not seeing one bit how anything done with RevisionDelete can not be done with regular delete. ʞooɔ 11:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I trust almost all admins with delete. it is just that i don't think offensive things, unless REALLY offensive things, should be deleted. If admins delete edits with the delete'n'restore method now, i think there should be an addition to the policy. I wanna ask: what kind of edits do you admins think that should be delete? And the fact revisiondelete is faster is just nice for you. As revisiondelete should not be used often, this doesn't really save an incredible amount of time.
It is not about the example. It is also not abour RS:DDD. It is about deleting revisions. As the current method takes quite some time, they don't delete the edits they don't like. If it is just a click to the hist and a click to delete they will probably use it too often, and also delete edits that should not be deleted.
Just because you can already do it, i think you shouldn't, unless there are going to come really strict rules.
Also to return to something above, about vandalists who are blocked, but don't see any edits. When it is a shared IP, they will start to complain. We don't want that. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:06, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
If you don't trust a sysop that's your own problem; the community obviously does or else they wouldn't've passed their RfA. If they do start abusing revdel then it will just like abusing any of the other sysop tools and may be grounds to remove their tools. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
i didn't say i don't trust a sysop. i said i don't trust certain sysop(s) with revisiondelete, but ok then, because you can undo it as easily as do it, and you still see someone edited it in the hist, support. because it is a bit better than "regular" thing you do.
but still i think there should be clear rules about it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:11, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - (Edit conflict) Seems people have a problem with when this should be used. When it should be used is when any delete should be used, when needed. First off, revisiondelete is the same as deleting and restoring without that revision but with less steps and logs. So they already have this power, just in a more complicated way. It's logged like all deletion; on the full deletion log, the page's deletion log, the user's deletion log. Now, we don't see admins deleting things and restoring them without a revision they don't like as they know they shouldn't. So 'rogue admins' deleting revisions they don't like isn't very likely as they could have before but didn't. Also, a revision delete is not wiping that delete off the face of the wiki, it can be restored by any admin that feels the inspiration to do so. I find it funny on how people seem to distrust admins with this but appear to be perfectly fine with them being able to delete all revisions with the same effort. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 11:49, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I feel I should throw my 1.3 pence in: I agree with what ajr says. Revdel is just a modified delete, leave things that require hiding from sysops (personal contact info, etc) to the oversighters (maybe if we ask reeeeeallly nicely they'll give one or two 'crats/'sops oversight... but I doubt that Lol). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support/oppose - I'm not sure how the system works for this, but if an history of which accounts have used revisiondelete can be access by a crat or wikia staff, I will happily support this proposal. Should there be a scenario where one specific sysop abuses their tools to delete previous issues against them, and no single person can access a "True" history of the wiki, I would then oppose this proposal. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 17:39, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

RevDel shows up right on the deletion log. ʞooɔ 18:17, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
The deletion log. Matt (t) 20:54, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't seem like a bad idea. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:17, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This is like deleting discussions. This is like erasing evidence to something. No. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 16:04, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

We delete spam pages..... that's like erasing evidence.... should we not delete those pages? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 16:06, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
I meant for the evidence it was deleted... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 17:07, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is deleted, it's just hidden from view. It can always be accessed by other administrators...as such this is a moot point. HaloTalk 17:30, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "hidden from view" and "deleted" are the same thing in this context :-) (wszx) 05:56, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
It is also logged in the deletion log. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:46, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I've thought this one through a lot. I don't think it's an issue of trust, although I would say that some sysops would probably more easily offended than most. What it comes down to is use. Currently, it is very rare that this tool is used...a few times a month at max...so I think it's fine just posting on a 'crat's talk to tell them if we need a revision hidden. HaloTalk 17:35, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where your coming from. Sure, the tool is not used on a regular basis, but what reason is there bother a crat when we could just as easily have a Sysop do it? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 03:26, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
Because it's not a common enough event to warrant sysops needing the tool. 'Crats can do it just fine. It's not a bother, they do it willingly. Stop acting like 'crats have some mystical higher calling to be perusing. There's just no sense in giving it to people to not be used. HaloTalk 03:31, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
If somebody only vandalized the wiki once a month, would we take the block right from sysops? If there was only a page in need of deletion on an annual basis, would we take away the delete right? I don't understand your logic one bit. I'm having the same trouble understanding why you said "Stop acting like 'crats have some mystical higher calling to be perusing." What are you talking about? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 04:22, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closure pending - Sysops will receive the delete revision ability. I have contacted Wikia staff and will close this once the appropriate changes have been made. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:52, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Please also see relevant discussion on Forum:Addition to deletion policy. --Aburnett(Talk) 04:26, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Update from Wikia-

Hi Aburnett,

Sorry for the delay, we've been talking this over in the office and have some concerns about giving this tool to another 78 people. I'll call in to the forum today to talk more in the public space.

Talk to you soon,

Regards,

-- sannse

--Aburnett(Talk) 20:26, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

So to add to that...
Revision delete is a powerful tool that is only supposed to be used to hide personal information and other critical data. It's not intended as a general vandalism tool, just to remove offensive content... that should just be removed by reversion. The default introductory text for the tool says:
Suppression should only be used for the following cases:
  • Potentially libelous information
  • Inappropriate personal information
Because it should be used so rarely, we don't usually give the right to admins or bureaucrats. We did so to bureaucrats here, but I'm a bit worried about giving it to another 78 people. It's something that should be used just a few times a year, not as a regular thing...
The main problem with it is that it can distort the history, making it look like someone added something that was added by someone else. It's clearer with RevisionDelete than it is with "delete then restore" (which should also be used very minimally), but that it's so easy to do with this tool makes it more likely to be over-used.
One option, if you feel you don't have enough people available to ask for help on the occasions there is personal information added to the wiki, is that we add it as a separate right. I don't really want to complicate things with extra user groups, but that could be a possibility. Another is just to ask the bureaucrats on the rare occasion you need to hide history! -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 00:54, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I only remember two instances of the tool being requested on this wiki. The first was when a user added an incredibly large image to a page that lagged computers immensely. The second was some shocking vandalism to a user-subpage owned by User:Degenret01, though nobody was willing to tell me what it was. The only other instance I would have used it was when somebody uploaded pornography to an external host and posted it here. Because it was not uploaded to the wiki, the image didn't appear as a redlink in the history. I'm a bit confused by the examples you've given, so would the examples I have given be acceptable? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:25, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
There have been many other instances. Just take a leaf through User talk:Azaz129 and look for headrs like "RevisionDelete request". It wouldn't hurt to check the other crats' talk pages also. The tool is generally used for personal information or outrageous vandalism. For example, I asked for a revisiondelete to be done for a revision on Swiz's talk page because of personal details revealed. It was also used for a vandal who changed several template pages to cause several tables to float up and block all of the relevant links on the wiki. It's used pretty commonly, I'd say.
That being said, I completely agree with Sannse in this case. I do not believe that it is necessary to hand the tool to sysops who do not need it. It only makes regular delete/restore redundant, and I agree that the issues associated with RevisionDelete are more than enough to warrant the limitation of its use and scope. --LiquidTalk 02:30, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I remember User:Jimbo Wales deleting a revision that I'm guessing what his IP [1]. That doesn't fall into any of those. Also "I'm a bit worried about giving it to another 78 people", we're up to 79 and I'm pretty dang sure not one of them is a rogue as you are implying that you distrust our sysops and in-turn dislike the the community's decision to give them the tools. We're not a bunch of fools. We know what it can do. We can handle ourselves just fine and perhaps better. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:45, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
(Am I suppmosed to comment after it's closed?). Yes, hiding an IP /may/ be a reason to use the tool - depending on the circumstances. Porn that can't be hidden by reverting might also be. But just bad edits in general, such as the bad links to google images I was shown on IRC (not embeded images, just spammy/porn links) are better simply reverted. That keeps the history clear and understandable, and the "paper trail" of past edits still visible. (And I'd definitely say there a big difference between "powerful tools should only be given out if absolutely necessary" and "I don't trust you" :) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 07:22, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Closed Wikia has decided we will not be given this tool.--Degenret01 03:07, December 7, 2010 (UTC)