Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Debate:Should we enable Oversight?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Phantom Hoover.

Recently, someone posted Karajou's phone number, wife's name, house address and pictures of the house from an estate agent's website on WIGO CP talk. TheoryOfPractice deleted the page, per consensus, but didn't take into account the fact that talk:WIGO has over 30,000 edits. The result was that the page could not be restored, and Trent had to lock the database for some time to fix it.

Copied from Saloon bar[edit]

I am going to do something I rarely do..I am going to dictate policy by fiat, because I am the one that has to waste an hour of his life cleaning things up, not you. You can not delete pages with 30,000+ revisions......don't do it, ever. The mob wants to be able to get rid of edits, and that is what oversight is for. Until such time that the mob decides we will never have need of to removed revisions from the database it will stay. Currently I have it. Pick 2-3 people who are established members of the sight, who most people trust. Ideally pick at least a couple that themselves don't get along that great. Then you have some oversight of oversight. All oversighting leaves a log, I, and the other oversight people will know when it has been done and if it was not done for a good reason then that person will no longer have oversight. tmtoulouse 17:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well the not get along is easy, RA and Human then. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 17:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Can haz too?-caius (decider) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Owing to time zone differences I think there should be at least one European. Just off the top of my head, AKjeldsen, BobM, Sid or myself are all long time members. It's really a matter of who is around the most to respond. I heartily agree with peer-review of any oversight actions. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:57, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Any crat can move someone into oversight, just discuss before you do it. Keep it to a minimum, right now it is just me and I am not going to be around enough to do much more than monitor it's use. tmtoulouse 18:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)
I'm around fairly (too?) often, but if this is something that requires any technical skills, I'm probably not the best choice. Also, perhaps Trent should make a brief list of "stuff a sysop never ever should do"? Could as well have been me as Theory to do something like this. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Agreed, that it is a good idea, I am not trying to fault anyone. The problem is one I face all the time which is that you usually don't know what people will do that they shouldn't until they do it. I will see what can be put together. tmtoulouse 18:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Don't stick beans up your nose! AK, I don't think it's hard to do, it probably looks like the "deleted article" revision history, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:29, 13 January 2009 (EST)
I think that'd be a great idea. Maybe just starting with a list of things that make Trent's life harder? I, too, am not particularly media-wiki savvy. CorryThen there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician. 19:07, 13 January 2009 (EST)

"I heartily agree with peer-review of any oversight actions." Me too. How about once we've picked our small gang of evil overseers, we insist that any oversight action must be immediately reported to another overseer to "second" that it was the right thing to do? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:34, 13 January 2009 (EST)

The primary concern is that there is no public log right? I will just make one. tmtoulouse 18:39, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I was about to suggest that! NightFlare 18:41, 13 January 2009 (EST)
I was about to suggest something simple like RationalWiki:Oversight log with a table of the oversighter, page, revision number and short comment, but if Trent wants to go the whole hog let him. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)
So we're going to have oversight with oversight? Sounds tasty. Oh, and I had an idea, it might suck, but it might be good. How about we split the vast powers, by not letting anyone be both a bureaucrat and have oversight? Thoughts? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:26, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Interesting idea, although looking at the bureaucrat list that rules out everyone suggested so far. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Well we don;t need a zillion crats, so perhaps whoever of us get picked could be decratted? Heck, I've done like one demotion in weeks... or months... and that was to crat TOP. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:09, 13 January 2009 (EST)
There is an oversight-like tool with a public log, called "deleterevision". Unlike oversight, which removes any trace of the edit in question ever existing (at least to the public), deleterevision leaves behind a placeholder, letting people know that there was once something there (and making it harder to abuse). On top of that, it uses the same log as deletions–observe. It would also be easy for Trent to add—he'd just have to add "$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['deleterevision'] = true;" to LocalSettings, and he'd be done. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:03, 13 January 2009 (EST)
That sound like what we need, well that is all sorted now. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 20:06, 13 January 2009 (EST)
By the way, Human's observation that deleterevision only hides the edit from those who don't have the deleterevision power isn't necessarily true—in the menu the ability brings up, if you set it to "Apply these restrictions to sysops as well as others", then the revision is hidden from everyone, even sysops and bureaucrats. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:09, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Vote Caius for oversight!-caius (decider) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I not burrowcrat am. I most often here are. I can oversigh? Toast s.png (with butter!) talk&nbsRobin Redbreasp;to Toast 20:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
You are a bureaucrat now problem solved. - User \scriptstyle-i\ln(-1) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Thanx (I think) Can I Promote CUR to editor? Toast s.png (with butter!) talk to Toast 21:05, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Back on topic, I have created a debate about this, as it's getting buried here. Phantom Hoover 13:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

EZ edit button[edit]

My proposition therefore is that Oversight or RevisionDelete should be enabled. They would be given to a group of trusted users, who would use them only when private information is compromised or similar. Of the two, RevisionDelete is preferable, as Oversighting is invisible to all non-Oversighters, as it leaves no logs, while RevisionDelete appears in the deletion log and leaves a placeholder in the page history. When it is used, a rationale would have to be given, and it would be checked by other people with the right. Phantom Hoover 13:43, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I would be all right with the addition of "RevisionDelete," but not "Oversight." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 14:21, 14 January 2009 (EST)
If RD does what we need (hide compromising edits), then it's all we need. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
ReversionDelete sounds good--as long as there's some sort of version trail in case anyone wants to call the mod in question on it. (As opposed to CP's "You are in error. No one is screaming. Have a nice day." approach.) --Gulik 15:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)
If you mean there are logs saying who did it, then yes, it shows up in the deletion log saying "X changed revision visibility of Y". Phantom Hoover 16:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)
This seems to be a little after the fact, since oversight has already been enabled, and creating a public log is apparently easy enough. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:48, 14 January 2009 (EST)
I'd prefer RevisionDelete, as it appears on recent changes and therefore would not be as silent (It also seems easier than altering the Oversight code to make a public log).
I must admit I don't really see much of a functional difference between the two. I think we should just let Trent decide which one he prefers and go with that. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Yet there is a functional difference between them: revisiondelete can be reversed fairly easily, whereas oversight would require Trent to dig into the database to pull it out. That way, if an edit is ever accidentally or needlessly removed, it can be easily undone. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:17, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Damn, you got there first. Phantom Hoover 16:19, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Oversight can be reverted with the click of a button. tmtoulouse 16:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Six one, half dozen the other[edit]

I don't care which. Just as long as we see no more deletion of 30,000+ revision pages. The consensus seems inclined towards the mediawiki hide revision so be it. Done. All sysops can now show/hide a revision. May I suggest someone update the sysops guide accordingly? tmtoulouse 16:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
It was already done. I got rid of the shorter version. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:49, 15 January 2009 (EST)