MediaWiki talk:Group-sysop.js/Admin opinion

message: Currently, we have two scripts available to up to use as the automatic deletion reason tool that appears in MediaWiki:Sysop.js. The original drop down appeared above the main deletion reason box, and it had the main reasons for deletion in a drop down box. The latest version, which was positioned to the right of the main deletion reason box, had just about all applicable deletion reasons in - This was mainly based on User:^demon/csd.js which many admins used before the software version was launched. So which version do people prefer?
:A minor clarification: The code that generates the drop-down list based on MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown is not a script, but an integral (though only recently added) part of the MediaWiki software.  The JavaScript version, which resides in MediaWiki:Sysop.js and overrides the other one, is a variant of ^demon's CSD AutoReason script, which predates the builtin version and served as the direct inspiration for it.  Somewhat confusingly, it's this latter version that Ryan seems to be referring to as the "new version" below.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may predate it, but many people prefer ^demons and would like it as default. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

message: New version - User:^demon/csd.js- for a number of reasons. The major being because of a very serious concern - when we delete  an article, by default we get the content of the page in the deletion reason, this tool deletes the oridinal content when a deletion reason is selected and replaces it with a link and explanation of the deletion. When using the original version of the page, the content is still added (unless manually deleted) and this has caused quite a few problems - attack pages have had the attacks still visible in the logs, and this lead to quite a serious legal threat being made against an admin who had forgotten to delete the content. The second reason is that we have all (well, just about) available deletion reasons available with the new script, all with handy links to applicable policy and guidlines to cover almost all eventualities. The original version only has links to the most widely used, but many admins focus on particular, often obsure areas that don't have a covered reason. There are pro's and cons of both, but to cover the most ground with respect to different admin concentrations and to cover the serious legal threat we have with the contents of pages being kept in logs, I feel the new version is better. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what we need to know is, generally speaking, which script did people prefer? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally prefer that MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown is used, and scripted to remove only G10 summaries, while admins can continue to add their own ^demon's script as they wish. But I am not overly bothered either way. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to add - whatever dropdown solution is implemented, Ilmari's G10 modification (regexp) script MUST be kept, for cases where admins forget to select a reason from the dropdown. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no longer needed now, I've removed the part of the mediawiki interface that puts in the content as default. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The autogenerated summaries are extremely useful. I see no reason to remove them entirely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they cause a lot of problems and the potential for harm far outweighs the advantages - I've spoken to some devs about it and they agree that it's probably a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The devs don't define consensus, and even if they change the default message each community can still choose whether to change it back. This is not sufficient discussion for such a drastic change. —Random832 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Could the builtin menu be changed to function like ^demon's JS version and include similar deletion reasons? From a software perspective - that would probably be a better way forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see User:Ilmari Karonen/deletereasonlisthack.js.  You can import in into your monobook.js for testing.  I also added a few lines to my monobook.css to make the interface look nicer, though it could probably be improved further.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The MediaWiki interface can be adapted to remove the autofill, and you can edit MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown to change the categories. We are left with only the "much smaller" benefit. If we can make the dropdown have a different value attribute from the element content (perhaps this is the question immediately above), or if we can get a bugzilla fix for this, then the size issue can be fixed and advantage seems to be with the "old" MediaWiki interface, scripted as above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :::::The autogenerated summaries are extremely useful. I see no reason to remove them entirely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they cause a lot of problems and the potential for harm far outweighs the advantages - I've spoken to some devs about it and they agree that it's probably a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The devs don't define consensus, and even if they change the default message each community can still choose whether to change it back. This is not sufficient discussion for such a drastic change. —Random832 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I did that after some discussion with the developers - we don't need the auto reason - it leaves bad content in the logs, that can't be removed. Administrators should enter there reason (as they do with blocking) for every single deletion they make. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins can _look_ to see if there's stuff that needs to be removed. What is "bad content" about "content was: "{ {db-author}}" (and the only contributor was 'foo')" for example? —Random832 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As a compromise, I would like to see the first few lines of content, and the sole contributor name if any, somewhere other than on the form. This way a script can be written (I've been meaning to write one, but your change makes it impossible as it stands) to automatically pick a reason from the dropdown based on a deletion tag (if present) in the content. —Random832 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No content should appear in the logs - it is deleted from the project for a reason and many admins make mistakes and leave it in. By default, we shouldn't be including deleted page contents in the logs - I repeat, we've had plenty of serious problems because of this - there's no good reason that can outweigh the serious problem of legal threats (from attacks and copyright infringements) that having the content added by default in the logs. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK. then I want the compromise solution of having part of the content appear _on the deletion page_ [not in a form element to be submitted, and therefore not to be put into the logs] so that deletion tags can be extracted from that content by a script. —Random832 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sounds fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the best way to do it would be through a bug. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we re-enable the auto-summary? It was perfect for things linke broken redirects and empty pages. If there are still admins who use bad deletion summaries, we should just talk to the few who make mistakes rather than inconvenience everyone. Kusma (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained the issues with the auto summary - they're quite simple really and regardless of who makes this mistake, it's something we can do nothing about once it's been done. It means that we indefinitely have attacks and copyright infringements on our project because someone forgot to remove the auto summary. It's not just a small number of admins, it's quite a large number who make this mistake every now and again so talking to each admin that does this isn't really feasible, neither does it solve the mistake that has already happened. I've said it previously, the benefit of not having the auto summary far outweigh the negatives here - Convenience certainly isn't a better reason than avoiding serious legal issues. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Our log entries can be purged by developers should a legal need arise. Do you have any data that shows that this is a common problem? Where has it lead to legal issues? Kusma (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the "-" sucks. I have edited MediaWiki:Excontentauthor to be more descriptive but I still think it should be deleted, and admins with poor deletion summaries should be warned and dragged to Arbcom instead of inconveniencing everyone. We don't semiprotect all BLPs either just because there are a couple of vandals. Kusma (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the inconveniencing, another point for the auto-summary is that in increases transparency. When the content is not problematic, it is good when other users can control what admins (have claimed to) delete. With broken redirects, the default deletion summary (showing the target) was clearly superior to the simple templated reason people use nowadays. Kusma (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also edited MediaWiki:Excontent.  Kusma (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it be much more practical to put a bit of js that blanks the autosummary when G10 and G12 are used? The autosm is useful in a lot of cases. -- lucasbfr talk 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already exists and works (just tried it with ). I have re-enabled the automatic deletion summary of MediaWiki:Excontentauthor (pages with just one editor usually do not have problematic edit summaries). Kusma (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oww didn't see that, thanks! I see no real reason to remove the automatic delete reason then. -- lucasbfr talk 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There doesn't really seem to be any consensus for my edit to MediaWiki:Excontent either, would it be best to revert that as well? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: John Reaves blanked it already, which does the same thing as deleting the page (i.e. deletions now use the default "content was $1" again). Kusma (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  default reason 

message: Any chance of rewriting this as a script to automate the real dropdown rather than removing it and creating a different one? —Random832 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean something like User:Ilmari Karonen/deletereasonlisthack.js?  Anyway, if the changes made by Ryan to MediaWiki:Excontent and MediaWiki:Excontentauthor stick, then I'm not sure if this is even really needed.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown 

message: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Delete reason dropdown script —Random832 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For anyone still watching this page