Forum:Policy for Special:RevisionDelete

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Policy for Special:RevisionDelete
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 June 2010 by Laser Dragon.

It has come to my attention that Bureaucrats now have access to Special:RevisionDelete. For those that don't know, RevisionDelete allows individual usernames, revision text, edit summaries, log entries, and/or files to be hidden from public view. Since, at this time, only Bureaucrats have access to this tool, Administrators will not (to the best of my knowledge) be able to review/undo any actions taken. As such, I figured that it would be a good idea to modify the deletion policy to reflect acceptable circumstances for this tool's use. I feel that this tool should only be used to remove personally identifiable information. Any other suggestions or comments? Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 21:40, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I have access to that extension on another wiki, and it isn't a big deal. You are correct in that sysops will not be able to see/undo any actions by this, with the exception of viewing the unrevealing log entry in the deletion log. Really, this should just be used to hide/remove cases of rude and bad vandalism from page histories (since our audience is mainly under 18), as well as inappropriate usernames/file names, etc. I agree with you about the personally identifiable info, and really this tool could be restricted to that. This tool can basically be used wherever before an admin deleted/restored a page to clear it's history. Ajraddatz Talk 21:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The policy on Wikipedia (and don't go RS:NOT#Wikipediaing me) is that oversight (and I believe the 'revisiondelete' right) is given only to those who have provided personal information to the Wikimedia Foundation, similar to the checkuser right. Wikipedia:Oversight  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hello71 (talk).

No, see below. Ajraddatz Talk 21:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Special:RevisionDelete is not oversight; It is simply a faster way of removing certain things from logs/article histories. Oversight uses Special:HideRevision, which is very hard to undo. This is very easy to undo, and leaves a log entry in the deletion log. Ajraddatz Talk 21:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDelete (suppressrevision specifically) is the replacement for oversight, but that's beside the point. The fact that Administrators can't unhide entries is the reason I don't believe this should be used for everyday maintenance. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 22:17, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense, although I personally don't understand why Wikia doesn't want to enable this for sysops. Also, you are not entirely correct about revisiondelete being a replacement; oversight is still used mainly to remove cache issues, as well as some other things that require better hiding. Ajraddatz Talk 22:19, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
I believe they would enable for sysops, if consensus was reached. I used contact awhile ago, and got an email saying it is a pretty powerful tool, so they want consensus. I don't have the energy to make a thread about it, so it never went anywhere, or so I thought. CIEONBucket detail.pngrwojy 22:30, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
Also personal info was specifically why I asked for it, as I had to delete a page and then restore all revisions except for it, which is a hassle. RCRVONSBucket detail.pngrwojy 22:31, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
That is where it should be used; wherever an admin would have otherwise deleted and restored the page. Ajraddatz Talk 22:36, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In my opinion it should be used in cases of security and privacy (somebody posts an RS username/password, for example), or as common sense otherwise provides. I'm fine with blocking pornography or other obscenity as well since typical users may not want or be expecting to see that when looking through revision histories. Plus our user base is fairly young. Endasil (Talk) @  07:10, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Offensive content and personal info Seems to be the only two places it would be proper. I also don't think at this time we should ask for this tool for our sysop level. If ever. This should definitely be in the hands of only a few IMO.--Degenret01 07:46, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

[1][2] Ryan PM 07:50, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
In those cases whomever fixed it could request a Crat to do the full Revision delete.--Degenret01 11:20, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
In the case of images, it wouldn't make too much difference, as (as far as I know) a sysop would have to undelete the image to view it, which I find unlikely. I agree that the tools should not be extended to sysops, though. I wouldn't trust half of them with it. These are rare cases, a sysop can request a crat to do it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:10, May 9, 2010 (UTC) 
No, there is a file history though I think it isn't available/preserved indefinitely. Endasil (Talk) @  06:52, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Since this action can still be undone, the file history still exists. I know there are records, it's not hard to access them via URL manipulation. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 07:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC) 

Oppose hiding offensive language. With admins unable to use this feature, it will either lead to a huge task for 'crats, or offensive content only being removed here and there. Plus, it creates a nasty gap in page histories. It should only be used for serious issues, such as revealing of personal details, threats, copyright violations, etc. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:01, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also, maybe we should assign this to a few admins, such as we have done with the checkuser permission? --Aburnett(Talk) 22:03, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia would need to create a new usergroup in order to do that. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 22:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
That takes approximately maybe 2-3 minutes if you don't count the time taken to have any b'crat assign specific users to the new grop. ⁓ Hello71 23:38, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - After using it today, I think it's ok to use it to remove extremely offensive language from log entries and edit summaries, but since it leaves generally useless entries in the history when removing text, it's probably better to do a normal delete/restore. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 23:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Which is extremely inefficient if there are a lot of revisions to be restored. ⁓ Hello71 23:41, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
It's a lot more efficient when multiple revisions need to be removed at once, as it takes a while to hide each of them individually. It's possible to invert the selection when restoring pages, so you can check the ones not to restore, and then invert it. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 23:47, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/clarify I should have said seriously offensive, thanks Dragon. Most of the crap we get isn't going to shock anyones knickers off to be honest, that doesn't really need to be hidden so much. I personally see less than 1 edit a week of things that fit this criteria. Way less. If I had this tool I can think of maybe four times I would have used it, so it isn't something that needs widespread dissemination. If in a few weeks our Crats feel its too much (or sooner, up to them) we can consider asking for it more then. Lets just see how it goes for now?--Degenret01 00:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh boy, this needs clarification. This is not oversight. It does not hide the revision/log entry, per say. All that it does is replace a certain aspect of it with Blank removed. When this happens, a log is also left in the deletion log. This is not a big deal, and there is no reason to treat it as such. Ajraddatz Talk 02:53, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that most of us know what this tool does, we are not mistaking it with Oversight. The reason this topic is here is due to the fact that only five active users have access to it, mistakes cannot be checked or undone by anyone else.
I can assure you that this tool is used for oversight, the Oversight extension was just a hack (see RevisionDelete). From a technical standpoint, the difference between Oversight and DeleteRevision is that the former moves the entries to a different table, and the latter sets viability bits. They're both used for exactly the same purpose - hiding content from everyone except those with access to the tool. I've used this tool's suppression abilities on another wiki, members of the usergroup 'Oversights' can prevent everyone except other Oversights from viewing hidden entries. To be honest, that is essentially what 'crats are able to do now. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 05:11, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, I know what this extension is and how it works. I've used it. I just feel that this is being made into too much of a deal... Ajraddatz Talk 14:00, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh, there is stuff I could say in regards to the oversight privileges on the Wikimedia projects, but I'll let that rest for now. It would be useful to explicitly note that this is the kind of thing to make a formal request for on the administrator requests page. If one of the current bureaucrats (or somebody else for that matter) would be willing to word that in a way that is appropriate on RuneScape:Administrator requests, please make that change to note it is something explicitly that can be done on behalf of the user community.

It would be nice to be able to establish some guidelines for the bureaucrats in terms of when this tool should be used. I would like to see it used sparingly and only in the most blatantly abusive cases. As a short list, perhaps for some of the following reasons:

  • Blatant copyright violations - This can be decided on a case by case basis, but this is a legal issue and there should be no need to revert a copyvio. This protects the project as well, as it removes public access in any form to blatant copyright violations.
  • Official DMCA take-down requests - This has been discussed in other Yew Grove threads, but a formal request from say Jagex (this is something like a letter or e-mail from a Jagex attorney, not something requested via in-game chat) to remove content certainly fits the role of what this tool is intended to accomplish.
  • Significantly offensive material - I don't need to give examples here, but from time to time some troll will post content that is so significantly offensive that as an admin you want to permanently block even an anonymous IP user. Again, there is no reason for this content to be accessed in the first place or ever restored.
  • Removing Passwords or other similar kinds of identity establishing information - This has been mentioned above, but again there is no reason for this to be restored and keeping it out of the hands of even admins is useful.

Yes, I realize that those who have this authority are selected anyway to use their brains and to demonstrate maturity on the subject, but it still is useful even there to have at least some basic minimal standards for when something like this may be applied. Any other thoughts on this topic? --Robert Horning 14:34, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

What about something like "Jagex Staff Portal"? ⁓ Hello71 23:20, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
We talked about this on the Freedom Watch thread, requests from Jagex will be considered on a case by case basis. If it is somehting illegal then no discussion will be necessary.--Degenret01 23:44, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Adopt Robert's points I hadn't even considered the extra points Robert mentioned, but thinking about it they really make sense. Since it already includes what most of the rest of us have said, if we come up with nothing else we should adopt the four points as the standard for our Crats to use. --Degenret01 22:17, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Robert's Proposal - Basically what I was thinking, plus the extremely offensive content part. Sounds great. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:31, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support Proposal - Per Degenret01 and Aburnett. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 16:23, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support Proposal - Also per above. Ajraddatz Talk 14:18, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Since this is already implimented. Ajraddatz Talk 19:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I've added it to user help. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 20:26, June 21, 2010 (UTC)