[RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

These requests for comments/change have lead to an implemented feature that has been successfully merged into the 3.1/Ascraeus branch. Everything listed in this forum will be available in phpBB 3.1.
Post Reply
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by imkingdavid » Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:53 pm

Pony99CA wrote:When combined with post revisions, should a soft delete and/or restore be considered a revision (for auditing purposes)?
If so, I'd hate to store an entire revision just to keep track of a post being deleted. If we choose to do this, we should add another column on the revisions table to differentiate between the type of revision. For instance, editing a post would be handled differently than soft deleting or undeleting (restoring) a post, but we could keep track of each of those types (or other types) in the chronological list of revisions. Of course, only the revisions for when a post has been edited will be able to be compared and such. Personally, I'm not sure if I'd like to do that, or if we should just keep track of it in the Moderator Logs.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by Pony99CA » Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:32 am

imkingdavid wrote:
Pony99CA wrote:When combined with post revisions, should a soft delete and/or restore be considered a revision (for auditing purposes)?
If so, I'd hate to store an entire revision just to keep track of a post being deleted. If we choose to do this, we should add another column on the revisions table to differentiate between the type of revision. For instance, editing a post would be handled differently than soft deleting or undeleting (restoring) a post, but we could keep track of each of those types (or other types) in the chronological list of revisions. Of course, only the revisions for when a post has been edited will be able to be compared and such.
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's worth the effort, but I wanted to bring it up as a concern.
imkingdavid wrote:Personally, I'm not sure if I'd like to do that, or if we should just keep track of it in the Moderator Logs.
That's fine for normal posts, but for Wiki posts, I presume that anybody would be able to soft delete them, and that might be something you'd want everybody in the topic to see (if only to report a troublemaker trying to delete your post).

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by brunoais » Sat Sep 01, 2012 7:25 am

Pony99CA wrote: If a user soft deletes a post, and a moderator restores it (perhaps because the deletion broke the flow of the topic), should the user be blocked from soft deleting it again or is appropriate action for the moderator to restore and then lock the post (because the user could still edit it)?
Allowing a user to edit a post is as painful as allowing the user to edit the post. When editing the post that was restored, a user can (and probably will) just clear the whole text and replace it with some dummy text mentioning that the post is deleted. For the usefulness of the topic, that is useless.
BTW, [offtopic]if the user knows about the restoration system and the post is restored, he'll (almost definitely) try to ruin it again.[/offtopic]
That's what my experience as a forum moderator says.

User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by imkingdavid » Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:05 pm

brunoais wrote:
Pony99CA wrote: If a user soft deletes a post, and a moderator restores it (perhaps because the deletion broke the flow of the topic), should the user be blocked from soft deleting it again or is appropriate action for the moderator to restore and then lock the post (because the user could still edit it)?
Allowing a user to edit a post is as painful as allowing the user to edit the post. When editing the post that was restored, a user can (and probably will) just clear the whole text and replace it with some dummy text mentioning that the post is deleted. For the usefulness of the topic, that is useless.
BTW, [offtopic]if the user knows about the restoration system and the post is restored, he'll (almost definitely) try to ruin it again.[/offtopic]
That's what my experience as a forum moderator says.
So then should "Edit Lock" prevent soft-deletion as well as editing? That would be a solution to both issues.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.

User avatar
canonknipser
Registered User
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:42 am
Location: Germany

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by canonknipser » Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:15 pm

@brunoais: the case of delete-content-by-edit should be solved by post revision tracking.

@imkingdavid: yes, of course - deleting is also a kind if edit - and soft-delete also should respect the edit time interval set in acp.
Greetings, Frank

english is not my native language

User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by brunoais » Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:32 pm

imkingdavid wrote:
brunoais wrote:
Pony99CA wrote: If a user soft deletes a post, and a moderator restores it (perhaps because the deletion broke the flow of the topic), should the user be blocked from soft deleting it again or is appropriate action for the moderator to restore and then lock the post (because the user could still edit it)?
Allowing a user to edit a post is as painful as allowing the user to edit the post. When editing the post that was restored, a user can (and probably will) just clear the whole text and replace it with some dummy text mentioning that the post is deleted. For the usefulness of the topic, that is useless.
BTW, [offtopic]if the user knows about the restoration system and the post is restored, he'll (almost definitely) try to ruin it again.[/offtopic]
That's what my experience as a forum moderator says.
So then should "Edit Lock" prevent soft-deletion as well as editing? That would be a solution to both issues.
Yeah... that seems to be the best option. not some thing that acts as: If the moderator did it, the user cannot go back from it.
E.g. user locking the topic vs moderator locking the topic
Just give the moderator the undelete + lock option.

User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by EXreaction » Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:09 pm

nickvergessen wrote:
EXreaction wrote:Instead of adding new permissions for soft deletion, permissions should be added for permanent deletion, and the current delete permission would become the soft delete permission setting. Permission to permanently delete posts or topics should be given out less often after soft deletion is available.
Whats the difference between what i was saying? Doesnt really matter which one is which, if the setting is copied anyway.
I dont think that anyone should have the ability to hard delete, it destroys history that should be kept if the user is not removed. If the current delete permissions are used for soft delete and nobody is given hard deletion permission, the administrators will have to decide themselves who can hard delete posts/topics.

nickvergessen wrote:
EXreaction wrote:When a user soft deletes their own post, they should be able to see it, plus anyone with moderator level soft deletion permission.
Why should users be able to see posts they just deleted, and don't have permissions to restore? I really dont see a point in this, so the next three questions are obsoleted.
I'm not sure where you got that from at all. If a user soft deletes a post they should be able to see it.
nickvergessen wrote:
EXreaction wrote:If someone has the ability to see a soft deleted post, they should be able to restore it (after all, they could just quote and repost it), there does not need to be a separate permission for that.
So restoring would be part of m_softdelete rather then m_approve? This will increase the complexity of queries and so slowing down search/feed and other get topics of all forums functions
Again, approving posts is entirely different than restoring ones that were deleted, the two should be completely independent permission wise.

nickvergessen wrote:
EXreaction wrote:Soft deleted posts should not show up in a moderation queue....
Where else would a moderator have the ability to restore posts/topics in the MCP then?!
They would be shown inline to people with the ability to restore them, just with a notice they've been deleted. They don't need a place to restore posts within the MCP, I don't see how that would benefit anyone.
nickvergessen wrote:
brunoais wrote:if the post is locked by a moderator, is the user able to restore or soft delete?
1. users should never be able to restore posts
2. if a post is locked it can not be modified by the user (irrelevant because of 1)
When was it decided that users should never be able to restore posts?

User avatar
drathbun
Registered User
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by drathbun » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:13 am

Regarding soft delete + post revision interaction: My opinion is that the two are completely separate. A soft delete is not a revision. If a post is soft deleted, then all revisions are processed in the same way as the current post version. That is, if the soft delete becomes a hard-delete at some point, then all revisions are removed. If the soft delete is undeleted, then the revision history is still present. But neither of those actions trigger a new post in the revision history as they are non-edit actions. Just my two cents.
Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by brunoais » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:29 pm

^
That really does makes sense.

User avatar
nickvergessen
Former Team Member
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Soft Delete

Post by nickvergessen » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:53 am

I'm currently still trying to figure out, how the best structure for this would be.

The idea of EXreactions plan is quite complex, because when m_approve and m_restore are seperated, there are multiple kinds of hidden topics. The following graph shows the topic status as a result of the included posts. (Moderative soft delete hole topic is not even implemented yet):
Image
(A Box is ment to be a topic, the types in it, are the different types of posts that are in the topic)

I don't really like this result, as it is really hard to understand and follow. Also, what should happen in case 6. (Unapproved and Softdeleted)? Who should be able to see it?

However with the plan I published on 31th August, m_approve and m_restore are merged into one permission and f_restore does not exist, the Graph is quite simple to follow:
Image
Therefor I somewhat would still prefer the second route.
Member of the Development-TeamNo Support via PM

Post Reply