Forum:Proposed user access level for viewing deleted pages

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Proposed user access level for viewing deleted pages

Note: This topic has been unedited for 1014 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

OculusWild expressed desire in December 2021 to receive a user right so he could salvage good jokes from articles deleted per VFD. In recent memory I recall him using "List of Sailor Moon characters" to expand Sailor Moon, The Last Jedi to expand Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, and past revisions of Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart are being used to expand Rush articles. Articles voted for deletion suck for a reason, but sometimes there are good jokes thrown out with the bathwater. It would be more efficient for a user who does this regularly to not have to keep asking.

Editors assigned to the proposed user group would not be admins – and could not unhuff pages – but would be trusted with access to any deleted version of any page without asking. Clicking View deleted edits? in page histories would list deleted revisions, which could be browsed one-by-one as wikicode. Content could be copied to a personal sandbox for editing.

The Fork calls the group thumbsucker:

“ Users in the thumbsucker group are people with the ability to view deleted page histories and revisions, information that is available only to them and the administrators. Although able to view this text, they cannot restore or delete pages. Useful to editors who want to re-write pages that have been deleted due to sucking. Abuse of this group to say copy paste articles without actually changing them will result in thumb removal, both in the usergroup and literally. ”

Technically speaking, creating the proposed user group would require someone with server access to add a few lines into the server config, have a Bureaucrat assign the group...and that's it, I think. (I base this on reading MediaWiki manual pages. I cannot guarantee everything works exactly as expected).

What do people think about creating a new user right? Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

HolUp OculusWild is going to go wild if this becomes a thing. OnePunch 10:46, 27-Feb-22

I personally don't object to the idea. I have undeleted a few articles to check their contents. Sometimes you can find some gems or ideas that were started but never finished. I will send a message to Llwy-ar-lawr to look in on this forum. RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted articles of course are not deleted but just rendered invisible. The key reason to do this is to defeat Anons and search engines finding stuff on the site we don't want to be on the site, such as bygone users' personal caches of porn. I don't mind creating this user right, but don't think it is important at all. I've brought back several articles at OW's request and have looked at them myself and never found any "gems" that beat devising a fresh new comedy concept of your own. Usually, when we delete something, it is because it sucks. Spıke 🎙️12:28 27-Feb-22

Considering no strong opposition within a week's time; if and when Llwy feels comfortable putting this change through, here's the code:

// https://uncyclopedia.com/wiki/Forum:Proposed_user_access_level_for_viewing_deleted_pages
$wgGroupPermissions['researcher']['browsearchive'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['researcher']['deletedhistory'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['researcher']['deletedtext'] = true;

The lines can be added anywhere in LocalSettings.php, regardless of other settings. As described in mw:Manual:User rights#Creating a new group and assigning permissions to it, simply addressing permissions like deletedtext of a named group makes that group exist.

Everything worked for me when I tested under a clean setup of MW 1.35.4 on a small private wiki: my Bureaucrat test account could assign and revoke the right; and my other test account could access the wikicode and visual content of deleted pages, search the archives by title on Special:Undelete, and view deleted images. It's possible but unlikely that we'd vary from my setup.

Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC) updated 20:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I revised the code above, with the understanding that an internal name doesn't have to match the displayed name.

What do I mean? On Illogicopedia's page for group rights, bots are called "Zombies", bureaucrats are called "Vampires", rollbackers are called "Phantoms", and admins are called "Werewolves". The names used by the PHP code are just like ours but the display is customized with pages like MediaWiki:Group-bot that can be updated by an admin at any time.

In other words, the internal name for this can remain viewdeleted while permitting its effective name to still be changed. And no matter what we decide to call it, Llwy can still use the code above, even before we settle on a name. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, "Researchers" it is, then. Revised the code again. (Note to self: save code for the very end, so I confuse others less). Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I've created this group with the internal name researcher. As you've said, the displayed name can be changed (MediaWiki:Group-researcher) if wanted. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 04:04 13 March 2022

Thank you. I'll set up the link and description. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What to call it

Regarding the name of the group: Why don't we not copy humor from some other website? Spıke 🎙️12:12 5-Mar-22

Agreed. Perhaps, the "Footsniffers"? Or is that too on the nose? I mean the feet, not the pun. OnePunch 12:32, 5-Mar-22

There is something worse than stealing a joke from elsewhere: Doing so and then wrapping it in a riddle. Spıke 🎙️13:19 5-Mar-22

is there a wikipedia equivilant term? Otherwise, besides being pedantic, I would just use the same term as the Fork. RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 15:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's settle on something before entering it into the system. The typical name used on Wikipedia for talking about this triad of powers is the self-explanatory viewdeleted group right. Do we want to go with this no-frills name instead, as Rom suggested? Short and direct. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Drat. Has no obvious plural in interface messages: "You are now a member of": "Viewdeleteds"? "Deletedviewers"? "Deletion viewers"? "Viewers of things deleted"? Likely why Wikipedia refers to it as Researcher. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It is short and direct, and instantly understandable to any emigrés from Wikipedia. If people nevertheless want to be different, it reminds me of Doc Smith's lensman. Spıke 🎙️18:01 6-Mar-22

Cool name. From a sci-fi book series where the Lens is "a unique badge of authority [...] that grants telepathic powers to the defenders of Civilization". Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@OculusWild: Since the code name viewdeleted has no obvious singular or plural forms for interface messages, how about Lensman/Lensmen or Researcher/Researchers? I don't really care what it's called, so I think it's up to you. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Researchers is fine. I know they call it Thumbsuckers on the fork, but I do understand we're trying to be original here.--OculusWild (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not The Trashmen or if you're into the whole non-gender specifics The Trashpeople or something to do with being a garbage man (woman.... person?), as it's like "oh look at me, I can see the old (deleted) trash that nobody wants except me, cause it's my job. I really miss my wife (or husband). This job does not pay very well. Why didn't I stay in school and get a proper job?". OnePunch 13:38, 12-Mar-22

I think the resolution was that the one single user to whom the power would apply was given the right to name it. Regarding the rest of your post, I remain against any unequal treatment across the sexes — which is utterly irrelevant on Uncyclopedia, as your persona here can be anything you want — but adamantly against trashing English so as to wear a modern attitude on our sleeves. Spıke 🎙️15:41 12-Mar-22

Edit summaries

Policy-wise, I think Researchers should give attribution where reasonably possible: edit summaries like "add from The Last Jedi" or "expand w/ The Last Jedi" would track where the reincorporated material came from. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)