Forum:Revdel for all sysops

Forums: Yew Grove > Revdel for all sysops

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 May 2013 by Cåm.

Due to Ajrabbitz suggesting all admins be given revdel in chat regarding the latest reassignment thread, I thought I would test the water as to whether Wikia would be willing to give the right to the 98 sysop accounts currently found on the wiki, given the result last time this was suggested. I was very much surprised to find the response.

All sysops can now use the deleterevision right. Wikia staff decided to honour the original request, however strongly suggest we come up with guidelines on how and when the tool should be used. The current policy can be found at RS:REVDEL.

This thread serves to notify users of this change and discuss any modification the current policy may require, if any.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Discussion

Yay. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:03, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
As kind of a joke sidenote, Wikia gave admins the wrong right. They have "revisiondelete", which does nothing, rather than "deleterevision". Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:07, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
I've messaged Wikia to fix that. Also to remove the current deleterevision usergroup as it's now obsolete. I left it up to them if they want to remove the right from 'crats seeing as it given to them twice now.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

The correct right has now been added. I now have funky checkboxes with all new buttons.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

A more recent opinion - teehee MolMan 17:04, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - If a regular user finds a revision in need of deletion, would they need to notify an admin via any of our thousand channels, or should a modified Template:D be created to ask for a revision to be deleted? Given that if a revision is in need of deletion it should be dealt with as fast as possible it might be worth having a template for revdel requests on the offchance an admin isn't sitting around anywhere. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:48, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say try to find someone in [[Special:Chat]] or IRC if something needs revdel'd. If no one is in there, put a message on an admin's talk page, preferably one you know is reasonably active and, given the varying time zones, possibly likely to come back online soon (e.g. there's no point trying to get a British admin's attention at 5am UTC). Putting the specific revision to be deleted in a visible template at the top of a page would just draw attention to that bad version of the page.

AnselaJonla

17:55, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

If there's no one on special:chat or irc, just leave a message on RS:AR. The same goes for any checkuser requests. I watch it and get email for every edit made there, even if no one else does. You might find an admin who isn't in either chat pick it up from watching recent changes too. Modifying templates is rather pointless given it's for specific revisions that are going to be reverted anyway.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

That'd be overdoing it and actually more harmful. Revdel is for extremely grotesque stuff. If a tag is notifying everyone that there is a harmful revision on the page, they'll go looking for it. That's not something we want especially for porn and personal information. Imagine someone saying they saw a site that was bad in the history of the page and lost their password to it. That'd suck. MolMan 17:50, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - So now when random old sysops that no one knows decides to randomly do countervandalism one day.. yey. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:54, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Let's desysop all of them. MolMan 17:55, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. We'd need another YG to determine the criteria for de-sysopping though, and that always seems to draw the inactives back like ~~bees~~ wasps to honey.

AnselaJonla

17:57, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Let's do it. Who wants to make the YG topic? XD Seriously though, Fergie's right. If there was ever a good time to have the desysop discussion, now would be it. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 07:07, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'd hope there's no one with sysop tools that thinks "I wonder what this does" without thinking of the repercussions. Either way, it shows up in recent changes and can be fixed without any real trouble.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Well... We might get a few laughs if it's entertaining. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:49, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Relevant. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 07:08, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

POWERRRRRRRRRR!!! - UNNNNNNNLIMITED POWERRRRRRRRR! Anyway, cool. I might actually use it at some point. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:02, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Why do all admins need this? Haidro ^(talk) 23:09, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Why would we restrict this to some admins? What possible benefit would that serve? Should we restrict each individual admin ability to only a certain group of admins? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:24, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I believe the idea of a select group of admins only ever arose because of Wikia's lack of wanting to give it out to so many users, due to fears of improper use. With said limit in mind, we've just adapted to reassigning the tools when necessary, rather than challenge the original refusal to give it to all admins. We can actually remove revisions through a complicated move-delete-undelete fiasco already (we just never do these days), so technically this isn't anything new and keeps a more linear page history than the more underhand method available.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

YOU'RE the one who suggested this, the burden of proof is on you. --Shockstorm (talk) 00:45, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

What if I want to put the burden of proof on someone else? I hate burdens myself. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:09, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought said burden would be on me given I set the email and made the thread.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Comment - So, why exactly did you decide to try to get all admins revdel at the request of a single inactive user (and in chat, instead of at least suggesting it in forum thread already being used)? --Shockstorm (talk) 00:45, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Because it is helpful for every admin..? Hair 01:19, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Because that's what the original consensus was for before Wikia decided to invent reasons to keep it away from all admins. Like Cam said, any admin can already do it, this just keeps things neat and is actually more transparent than the current way. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:34, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As there seem to be a few mixed feeling on how this might impact the wiki:

Three years ago, Wikia rejected our request to give every admin revdel. There was consensus on the wiki to do so and, ignoring staff's feelings at the time, we could have had the every sysop with tool for 3 years and we would think nothing of it. For the record, I was rather surprised Wikia did not insist on gaining consensus for this again.
There is already a method that can be used when the proper tools is not available: Move, delete, undelete all but the undesirable revision and move back. Having this tool adds transparency to that process, as well as making it easier and faster. Any admin or custodian can see delete eits, adding further transparency.
Revdel is used relatively often. I count 11 uses of the tool in the past 20 days, and I would prefer to ask any admin rather than looking for the 9 active users with the right (active crats and admins in the deleterevision usergroup), who may or may not be available. There is likely an admin available 24/7 given our overlapping sleep patterns and this does not require rationing out the tool between timezones as before.
Revdel is not a tool particularly open for abuse; it can easily be reverted in a handful of clicks. Assuming an admin was hacked, this is not something that would really damage the wiki in the long term. If an admin is possessed by a sudden urge to see what it does, a separate screen opens up linking RS:REVDEL and asking for confirmation of the action. I do not think this alters the argument for removing inactive admins given the array of far more damaging tools available for compromised admin accounts. The tool carries no legal issues, as opposed to checkuser. If there was any base for removing inactive admins I would note the ability to revert abuse filter actions and release thousands of untraceable vandalism edits into the wiki. The current abusefilters have prevented over 23000 edits. I doubt anyone would volunteer to dig through ~8m revisions (going off revision diff numbers) to find those edit.
There is already a clear policy in place for the use of the tool. I notice in the case of hiding external links we tend to err on the side of caution rather than test where the link goes, but given the only way to really know where the link goes it to click it I'm can't blame anyone for doing so. Other uses of the tool appear to be inline with the policy.

As a side note, this was an unexpected turn of events, even for me. I was expecting a vague email regarding Wikia's current standing on the issue upon which I would either create a thread to gain consensus or not bother given the result of the previous thread. Creating this thread was not something I think anyone across the entire of Wikia would have gambled on.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Closed - Discussion has died down.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature