MediaWiki talk:Group-sysop.js/Admin opinion

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)


 * It may predate it, but many people prefer ^demons and would like it as default.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New version as per Ryan above - it's much too easy to leave in G10 problems and BLP material by mistake in the other version. Plus the full list of CSD reasons is obviously better.  BLACK KITE 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No need The G10 modification by Ilmari automatically removes the content on attack pages, and admins should be used to double-checking the reason anyway. I think it would also be possible to script it to autofill using the MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. I use a customised version of demon's script (like many other admins), so I don't see any benefit of introducing it to sysop.js - it is a redundant overhead with the capacity for conflict. There is already an auto-reason dropdown, which combined with Ilmari's script, makes the arguments for the new script moot, IMO. If admins are forced to have a list of all the possible CSDs anyway, then they might as well all be included in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what we need to know is, generally speaking, which script did people prefer?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's no longer needed now, I've removed the part of the mediawiki interface that puts in the content as default.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The autogenerated summaries are extremely useful. I see no reason to remove them entirely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Use builtin menu but make it work as desired. I think the best solution might be to modify the builtin system to blank the summary when (some) predefined reasons are selected. A simple approach would be to add something like the following code (not tested/debugged!) to MediaWiki:Sysop.js: Of course, there are various fairly obvious refinements that could be made to this simple hack, such as only clearing the summary field when certain items in the menu are selected, or even changing the builtin menu to function entirely like ^demon's JS version, such that any chosen reason is automatically transferred to the summary field. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

New version heck yes. The drop-down box is much smaller and it removes the "content: 'blah blah blah'" which I was already manually deleting anyway because I didn't find such summaries to be descriptive. It also narrows down the CSD A7 criteria, with categories for corporations, groups, bands, firms, and web to try to emphsize that A7 only applies to that criteria. Hurray for the new one! hbdragon88 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

New version - Well, I user ^demon's version and much prefer it to the first crack at the dropdown list. To be honest, I haven't really checked out the new list. If it's more like ^demon's, then I would prefer that one. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Old version - I usually, when deleting a speedy page, click on the delete link in the tag - which gives the reason from the tag. Occasionally, I would like to add a small piece which states the CSD - in addition to what's already written there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really care what newfangled scripts are used, as long as I can still do things the old-fashioned way. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New version - As a newbie admin, I find the new version to be easier for me to use and ensures that a good deletion reason is entered properly. I found with the old version that I was occasionally forgetting to enter one - this way, it works. I quite like the range of reasonings, too. Makes life easier for me, and I'm all for that. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

old version if you want some fancy javascript, you can put it in your monobook.js —Random832 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New version - Much better version of the deletetion dropdown. Per all the reason Ryan Postlethwaite already stated. Garion96 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New version - It's very useful for situations when the article wasn't already tagged. Also a question, why aren't we using bullet points in this discussion like almost every other discussion? James086 Talk &#124; Email 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

default reason

 * The autogenerated summaries are extremely useful. I see no reason to remove them entirely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DISABLE THE DEFAULT REASON. I don't really give a crap what you do with the dropdown, but I was very much annoyed when I went to delete a page and found the default reason (which was perfectly acceptable in the case of the particular page I was deleting) had been replaced with "-". I have reverted this change which was not proposed here and had not been discussed anywhere that I can find. OK, there was a minimal discussion. self-reverted, but I don't think this is what people are voting for when they say "new version" —Random832 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yeah, that sounds fair.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

so is there any way to actually do that simply by editing interface, or should I file a bug? —Random832 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to do it would be through a bug.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

12554 filed. —Random832 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that I can disable this functionality just for me (ie, override the script)? I use WP:TWINKLE for my autosummaries, so I don't need that at all. If I hit the delete button instead of the twinkle button, I WANT the autosummary. Disabling it is an absolutely terrible idea. There's are several frequently arising occasions where not having it just creates work. For example, if I move a page where the old title is not suitable to keep as a redirect (ie, userfying something) but I want to make it easy to find for anyone looking for it, the default edit summary saves me having to retype the target article name. Also, if you are doing a prod, having the concern autopopulate so that someone doesn't have to guess is helpful. --B (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Also edited MediaWiki:Excontent. Kusma (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Already exists and works (just tried it with db-attack). 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)
 * 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)


 * 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?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown
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)


 * 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)

For anyone still watching this page
See Administrators' noticeboard —Random832 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)