Utilisatrice:Anthere/Deletion management design

Un souvenir...un rève...un fantasme...

It appears there is sometimes necessity to undelete a file (see w:Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)

Comment by Brion : I should point out that Cunc has asked, and I've agreed, to revamp the currently difficult to use and limited-to-sysops Special:Undelete page. I'd very much like some input on what the needs for the deletion/undeletion system are. --Brion 05:34 15 May 2003 (UTC)

Page of deletion itself

add check box to identify certain categories of articles

check : copyright/porn :>non visible to non-sysops, and deleted by developers from time to time

not check : other material :>visible to anyone

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-May/010376.html

Deletion log

Separate logs per namespace (one log for articles, one log for user space, one log for meta pages)

possibility to see the article
last version only ?

all historical versions?

sysop and loggued-in user ?

sysop only ?

all users ?

direct access for undeletion for sysop (There could be a link from the deletion log to the restore page, auto-inserted by the logging mechanism)

Undelete page

Per order...

Display by namespace first (there would be three clearly identified and separated list)

For each namespace, display
per alphabetical order (issue non alphabetical letters)

per date of deletion

per author of deletion (likely to be controversial)

pages displayed by packages of 50 (or more) with a next and a previous

Possibility for users to see the deleted article (last revision or all revision) : this issue is very controversial.

from old request of mine on mailing list

What I've suggested before, and if I have time I'll try to implement it, but it'd be lovely if someone else got to it because I'm stretched a little thin right now, is to have a deletion log _table_. (Or perhaps a general 'event log' which also keeps track of bans, protections, unbans, unprotections, creation of user accounts, sysopization, etc; of which we can extract just deletions for purposes of showing a deletion log).

This could then be easily sorted by timestamp or by deleting user, and for sysops a link to the undelete could be made instantly available.

brion vibber

Other options:

If you go to a page that has been deleted (or where an earlier version has been deleted), and you're a sysop, then a link to the relevant restore/archive page is provided.

--mrd

I don't understand that option Martin.

taking a leaf from meatball[modifier | modifier le code]

A "Delete Experiment and Welcome" link & tag would be a good idea for deleting junk.

the process is more open
newcomers who wrote the junk text get a link to a page saying "Hi! Welcome to the site, but please don't do this!"

This could be used for copyrights too, but I think with these we maybe benefit from a central list. Of course, a central list could be generated. But then it's "dumb", you can't see at a glance what the debate on each one is. -- Tarquin 13:02 18 May 2003 (UTC)

a central list can be generated from backlinks - the same way it's done on . I think the "dumbness" is good it keeps debate in one place - as is, we often have debate on VfD and seperate debate on the article's talk page - that's not very productive. MyRedDice 13:24 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Conflicts[modifier | modifier le code]

Is there such a thing as a deletion conflict? What happens if:

I load a junk page
while I'm thinking about it, Brion edits it to create a decent stub
I hit the DELETE button

Does the page still delete?

Yes. That's happened _very_ occasionally. If it happens to you, just shout out: any sysop can undelete the page. --Brion VIBBER 17:51 18 May 2003 (UTC)

A similar thing that has happened to me several times is a "rollback conflict": I rollback vandalism, but so do you, and I end up rolling back the change you made. :( Wouldn't the solution to both these to add a version number to both commands, ie "delete article, version 63", and "rollback from version 63". Then is when the system gets the command, if the newest version number is not 63, just display a message saying "Someone has edited this article since. Your action is not possible. Please reload." -- tarquin

Yes, I just haven't got around to adding that. --Brion VIBBER 23:57 18 May 2003 (UTC)

from :

I like the meatballWiki system: In other words, to delete a page, replace it with a link to wikipedia:deleted page. If a page has not been updated for 30 days, and it starts with a wikipedia:deleted page link (it may have other stuff too) then it gets deleted. Of course, any system that gives the same benefits is fine by me:

Any user should be able to nominate a page for deletion. Similarly, any user should be able to veto a nomination for deletion. No special sysop powers.
Any list of pages-to-be-deleted should be auto-updated.
Nominating a page for deletion should show up as a "change" on watchlists, recent changes, etc. Ditto nominating for undeletion.
Pages should not be deleted while there is still conversation over whether the page should be deleted.

Differences that I think wikipedia should have:

Undeletion should be an option for sysops - the current system would be sufficient for that, though, because it wouldn't need to be used much.
The page and talk page should be considered as one unit, so the talk page should be deleted when the main page is deleted, and edits on the talk page would slow down deletion.

tend to disagree with last option. On french wiki, we often have a quite persistant editor, insisting to create articles we decided not to keep (not enough famous artists for example). Each time, we debate the topic in length. Then delete the page. A couple of days/weeks later, we see the same article reappear. Some like to just pick up the last talk page for the same article, so we don't go through the process. Sometimes also, after a page is deleted, we keep the talk page for a while before "permanent" disappearance in the great black hole. Deletion of article and talk page can be made "together" by default, but imho, it should not be mandatory. ant

I'm happy for the undeletion system to remain arcane, provided that the deletion system doesn't allow unreviewed or unilateral deletions. Martin

There are only two circumstances under which there's actually any reason to make a page vanish instantly:

Material that Wikipedia cannot legally distribute at all (flagrant copyright violations; kiddie porn; whatever)
A page that needs to be removed as part of an aggregate operation:
- Renaming an existing page in its place
- Merging the history of a broken-up article back into one piece by deleting the pieces and restoring them under the same name.

The rest of the time ("newbie experiments", "junk", "vandalism"), it's unclear what the benefit of instant deletion is supposed to be. Blanking it, marking it as to-be-deleted and letting it be automatically deleted after a set period during which no one has replaced it with real content sounds like it would do just fine.

In general I think that a de-evolution of power to the general users is a significant part of what makes wiki great, and a deletion system that in general works more like at Ward's Wiki or MeatBall would be preferable. When actions are easily reversible, and permanent serious actions take time and cooperation, abuse (or the appearence of abuse) is not likely to be a significant problem, and everyone can "be bold" in their work.

That has nothing to do with the ugly, difficult to use "votes for deletion" page. Remember, VfD was originally a software feature designed to streamline deletion of junk pages in the days when actual page deletion was restricted to just Jimbo and Larry. When the feature was removed, the page was perversely retained and edited manually for ten months. --Brion 09:29 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

It would be great if blanked pages were automatically deleted a month after they were blanked. Until then Admins should be able to do as they do now (as you say the VfD page is not at all a desirable way to delete the many vandalisms and newbie experiments we get daily. --mav

I very strongly disagree. Vandalism can go unnoticed for a long time. Ant

end move from en.wiki

I would not like it if blank pages were automatically deleted: sometimes they are the result of vandalism which was missed. Granted, I've only come across it twice in two years, but there have been cases where a vandal deleted everything in the article and I stumbled onto the vandalism months afterwards. In one case it was originally a stub; in the other it was a fairly good article. (no, I don't remember which two). Anyway, so I'd prefer automatic deletion require a change to a notice to delete the page, and that that change be flagged everywhere that page appears so that people will notice it. Koyaanis Qatsi

What if pages to-be-deleted showed up as red links rather than blue links? Would make the forthcoming deletion sufficiently obvious? Maybe not always. But perhaps coupled with an auto-updated list of pages to-be-deleted? MyRedDice

How about just another flag on RecentChanges? You already have M and N, so why not D? -- User:SunirShah

I think the recent pages is too long for that to work really well. Only wikipediholic look at the whole recent page log day after day.

it'd show up on "related changes" and watchlists too, though - that'd help. --mrd

some links

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003490.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003477.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003689.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003754.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003755.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003776.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003800.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004026.html