Forum:Choosing new RevisionDeleters

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Choosing new RevisionDeleters
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 31 May 2011 by Gaz Lloyd.

I recently talked to Sannse about the possibility of redistributing the RevisionDelete tool among our users. Currently, there are 13 users (the bureaucrats) who have access to this tool. The problem I wish to raise is that recently, the use for revision deletion has become slightly more common. Users and IPs alike have been posting malicious or possibly malicious external links and personal contact information, all things that I believe are edits that should be revision deleted. However, the vast majority of our bureaucrats are inactive, and the ones that are not are merely "semi-active". When malicious information is posted, the diff should be hidden as soon as possible, but this is not entirely possible if it takes several hours before a bureaucrat notices this. My main worry is that an overzealous counter vandal may see the diff and follow the link if the diff has not already been hidden from view. We need to greatly reduce the possibility that such a thing might happen and a user become infected with a virus or some form a malware.

I am aware, however, that administrators may currently manually delete single revisions by deleting the whole page and restoring all other revisions. However, this becomes extremely difficult when the page has thousands of revisions and there are already multiple such revisions that have been hidden in a similar manner. This means that caution must be taken to ensure that the previously hidden revisions do not surface again. Such a scenario has occurred previously on the Corporeal Beast article. An additional problem with manually deleting revisions is that should an administrator not notice that there was a previously deleted revision on the page, they may inadvertently restore the revision, allowing users to see the revision once again. This is something that should be prevented at all costs.

I have talked with Sannse and Uberfuzzy through Special:Contact, and they have agreed to let us go through with this. Basically what I'm asking here is: Is the community okay with redistributing RevisionDelete tools to a few of our admins? Perhaps 5 or so active users could be granted this tool, similar to what has been done with the CheckUser right.

Lastly, should this thread pass, we will be able to select the new RevisionDeleters in the second phase of this process.

Discussion

Support - As nom. Suppa chuppa Talk 00:37, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support. Most of our 'crats seem to think that the best 'crat is an inactive one, and that ideology doesn't really work with something like revdel. Granted, deleting revisions isn't something which must be done quickly, but slightly less than a day-or-so waiting time would be nice. ajr 00:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Sounds logical.  Tien  00:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - There's been an increasing need for it as of late. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Basically every day I see admins deleting whole pages (usually widely-viewed ones) with the purpose of hiding a single revision. It would be so much faster/more helpful if select admins could just delete a revision without deleting the page. ɳex undique 00:57, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Tien and Ajr. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:35, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Ajr, I would rather see the use of this right rather than the removal of a page for a set period of time to delete a single revision (people might be searching for a page that was just deleted for that instant). Inadvertently adding previous deleted revisions is bad enough, but with over four million edits to this wiki so far it has become that much more monstrous of a task to keep up with. I think that previous deletions to live pages will be missed and brought once again to light. God speed to those selected to rid the wiki of filth through the RevisionDelete group right. Ryan PM 05:06, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Ajr and Ryan. Matt (t) 05:31, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per my little discussion with suppa. 222 talk 06:25, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - The main target of vandals is highly visited pages, and they take longer to delete/undelete and it'll have to load quite a while (Once, a highly visited page was off for around 6 minutes because loading the page didn't work or something), and because these are highly visited, this will cause confusion for our visitors. This would be a great alternative to this proposal. There's one thing I'd like to know though: Will the amount of users with this right be an exact number? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:08, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I assume so, since for whatever reason Wikia considers revdel to be some amazing checkuser-like right which should be hoarded (???). Not like it's enable for all admins by default on Wikimedia or anything... ajr 13:37, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I can see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Sysops have undergone their RfAs, therefore they are trusted to use the Delete right, which is no different in principle to RevisionDelete. Real Mad 15:09, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Several times (especially recently) I've had to momentarily delete entire articles in order to restore all but a couple of revisions. If we continue to use this hack rather than standardizing the use of RevisionDelete in order to hide harmful revisions, we will see more problems. For example, let's say an IP posts a link to a malware-laden website on Nex today, and the article is deleted/restored in order to hide it. Three months from now, another IP does the same thing to the article, and the process is repeated. It's most likely that the first malicious revision will be restored, because the admin can't reasonably be expected to check every single revision for malicious content. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per all. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:49, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Having this tool available more quickly can't be a bad thing, but can we add the tool to the Checkuser group, as that is also a group of 5 or so active users. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:41, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you call Caleb, Gaz, and Karlis active? That's a funny one. Also, let's not over-stuff groups here. It's called "checkuser" for a reason, and revdel really doesn't fit in anywhere there. ajr 13:59, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Hi I'm at your beck and call. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:15, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Arg, it would have added to the effect if you didn't notice it >.> (you aren't as inactive as the rest) ajr 00:19, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
Hey I still read all the YG stuff even if I don't normally post anymore. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 03:48, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
When we choose the checkusers we wanted to get active people. If the current checkusers are not active enough to have rev-delete, then are they active enough to still have access to the checkuser tool? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:15, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
I think we cbf having another discussion to choose checkusers. Also, checkusers are a much less often used tool. 222 talk 07:16, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
We are going to have a discussion about choosing the rev-deleters, so why would you cbf having an almost identical discussion?
"Checkuser was given to a few members of our community so we could always have quick access to it when needed.". We also want rev-delete to be given to a few members so there is quick access to it when needed, so why not combine the tools and give them to our most active and trustworthy users? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:31, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
Because the kind of users who need checkuser is another kind of users than those who need revdel. (I would think it's a good idea to give revdel to brains, for example, but I wouldn't think it'd be good to let him have checkuser) What's the point of merging those two? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:52, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
So we want people who are active so that rev-delete can be accessed quickly and we wants people who are active so that checkuser can be accessed quickly, but we don't want the same people to be both? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:26, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
Some users can not be trusted enough for checkuser, but have great use for revdel, so the problem is that for revdel the main concern is need for it, and for checkuser the main concern is trust. Because of that, it's just better to keep them split. I mean, what's the benefit of merging them? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:55, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good And while I do trust each of our group of Checkusers, I just also happen to be a huge fan of splitting tools up. Not that any of the 5 would get all "amg I be checkuser n revdeleter I shall pwnz all naow!!!", but simply as a matter of good form and on general principles. That's just me, don't rage if you disagree. You can, but it is entirely unnnecessary.--Degenret01 13:56, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support- Also, I disagree that all checkusers should be given revdel or something stupid like that. However, if we have a checkuser that can make use of the revdel tool, then he/she should have it. bad_fetustalk 17:16, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Clearly consensus to change some revdelers. Discuss which ones here. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:55, May 31, 2011 (UTC)