Last modified: 2014-02-26 15:32:11 UTC
After some discussion as to how we handle the declining number of admins on the English language Wikipedia we got consensus for one proposal to reduce our need for admins by allowing anyone to delete their own mistakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/2#Unbundling_-_some_U1_and_G7s All logged in editors would be able to delete pages if: Either: They were in their userspace and had not been moved there from somewhere else, or edited by someone else (ignoring bot edits and edits flagged as minor)(This does not allow you to delete anything in user talk or any other namespace). Or: Any page that the editor created and which is less than three months old, unless it has been moved or has been edited by another editor (ignoring bot edits and edits flagged as minor). The three months might well be a variable that admins will want to vary by project. Limiting this to logged in editors reflects the reality that there may be several people editing under the same IP address. I suspect that many other projects will also use this feature if it were enabled on EN wiki. As well as helping with the declining number of admins this change would contribute to the WMF's agenda of making the projects more open by empowering more editors.
Should be implemented as an extension. Not hard to do, though.
(In reply to comment #1) > Should be implemented as an extension. Not hard to do, though. We don't store bot edit markers like that iirc so would be need to rely on revtags or similar (unless we've changed that recently)
(In reply to comment #1) > Should be implemented as an extension. Not hard to do, though. AFAIK this is not possible via extension, because Title::userCan first checks quick permissions before running hooks, which means it would fail out early before extensions have a chance to fix it.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/52811
(In reply to comment #2) > We don't store bot edit markers like that iirc so would be need to rely on > revtags or similar (unless we've changed that recently) That condition could safely be changed “to edited by an account in the bots group”
Tyler, the conditions of this bug are too specific to be implemented by core, including your deleteown permission.
(In reply to comment #6) > Tyler, the conditions of this bug are too specific to be implemented by core, > including your deleteown permission. OK, but how should I implement it in the core? If a user doesn't have the delete permission, it will fail out after the quick permissions check. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > We don't store bot edit markers like that iirc so would be need to rely on > > revtags or similar (unless we've changed that recently) > > That condition could safely be changed “to edited by an account in the bots > group” Or rather, edited by any group with the bot permission.
OK, if https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/52910 gets merged then it's possible.
(In reply to comment #8 by Tyler Romeo) > OK, if https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/52910 gets merged then it's possible. Merged on 2013-06-01
Tyler: You set this ticket to ASSIGNED and yourself as assignee a year ago. Do you still plan to work on this? For the records: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/52811/ was abandoned. https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/52910/ was merged.
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #10) > Tyler: You set this ticket to ASSIGNED and yourself as assignee a year ago. > Do you still plan to work on this? > > For the records: > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/52811/ was abandoned. > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/52910/ was merged. Well Extension:DeleteOwn is what I made in order to provide this functionality. Maybe this could be marked as FIXED? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/project:mediawiki/extensions/DeleteOwn,n,z
(In reply to Tyler Romeo from comment #11) > Extension:DeleteOwn is what I made in order to provide this > functionality. Maybe this could be marked as FIXED? > > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/project:mediawiki/extensions/DeleteOwn,n,z That sounds like a good WORKSFORME. :) Thanks for the update!
