Admin Forum:Revision deletion

Has Wikia ever considered giving administrators the power of revdelete? There are instances of grossly degrading, offensive or otherwise obscene edits that we don't want people to see, especially on a wiki like iCarly or Phineas and Ferb that young children frequent. My administrators would use it wisely.  Eric the Grape talk 13:52, August 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins on large wikis are sometimes given right such as this, for example, some of the Call of Duty wiki admins have Checkuser. It's only on an as-needed basis, however, and only through Special:Contact.
 * As a work around, you can delete the page, and then restore everything but the bad revision(s) --  Random Time  14:03, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would there be a lot of abuse if admins had revdel?  Eric the Grape talk 14:10, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's also why most admins don't have checkuser. If you need something revisiondeleted, you can Special:Contact about it, and staff will take care of it.
 * Unfortunately, the availability of checkuser doesn't seem to have any criteria and mostly appears to be a form of favoritism on Wikia's part. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 20 Aug 2011 11:38 PM Pacific
 * There are three criteria for receiving CheckUser, that we only give on very rare circumstances:
 * The wiki needs to be very large with a clear history of persistent vandalism.
 * The admin needs to be someone that Wikia is familiar with and has a good working relationship with.
 * The above is important because we are entrusting the admin with very private data.
 * Eric the Grape, please use Special:Contact to report what is happening on your wiki and why you are requesting revdelete. Good luck! --Meighan http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 02:44, August 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something that should be at Help:Checkuser. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 23 Aug 2011 9:21 PM Pacific


 * Actually, just to add in a random twopence here, there is no evidence of potential abuse if revdel was usable by administrators. On Wikimedia, deleterevision is a part of the default sysop group, and is used to hide grossly offensive material in the way that you describe. While Wikia is not Wikimedia, there is no evidence that revdel would be abused, and in fact other technical aspects of rights (such as block, delete, rollback, and especially editinterface) can be abused in a far worse manner than revdel ever has been. As to other reasons why Wikia wouldn't want it to be part of the sysop group, I cannot say. 21:57, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, wrong. There are several examples of abuse in Wikipedia's history and elsewhere. Of course, the nature of this power makes it hard to give evidence, but people are clever on both sides.
 * Some articles on revdelete (aka MediaWiki 'oversight') abuse:
 * Wikipedia self-flagellates over vanishing 'farmsex'
 * Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
 * Permanent removal of edits from history
 * Oversight (Or Lack Thereof)
 * -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 15 Sep 2011 2:01 PM Pacific
 * That is abuse of oversight, which deleterevision is most certainly not. Oh, and did I mention that admins can delete revisions anyways using delete/restore? We'd better get rid of those too since they could be abused. 21:59, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, deleterevision (the right which is enabled in the sysop group on all Wikimedia projects) is no less transparent than the delete ability. Both remove content, but it can be restored with a couple of clicks. Both leave log entries which specifically state what was removed. Both deleted pages and deleted revisions can be viewed by any other sysop. So, this in mind, why is deleterevision such a big deal? As I said above, rights like editinterface or userrights have far more damaging potential. 22:12, September 18, 2011 (UTC)