A
DeleteVulture is not in the habit of marking pages for deletion. Rather, the
DeleteVulture circles over
RecentChanges, spotting pages which look as if they are likely to be deleted. When the "(deleted)" marker appears, the
DeleteVulture swoops down to second the
PageDeletion.
One of the
DeletionConventions is to wait about 24 hours before seconding a
PageDeletion. Waiting is necessary for a couple reasons:
- It allows time for all BackLinks to be found and fixed.
- It allows time for several other WikiZens to ponder the proposed deletion of the page. One of them just might restore the page.
One might also imagine a
DeleteVulture as someone whose habit when wiki-ing is to turn to the
RecentChanges and
RecentEdits pages and systematically second the deletion of every "(deleted)" page in the lists. But unlike a
DeleteAngel, the
DeleteVulture does so without bothering to examine the missing content of the pages or check and fix their
BackLinks.
Like a vulture in nature, the
DeleteVulture is not evil, though his/her presence can make
RecentChangesJunkies feel uneasy. The
DeleteVulture is not a
WikiGremlin but a zealous
VolunteerHousekeeper with a taste for dead pages.
I'm not reading this! I'm hiding my eyes! You can't make me stop swooping!
The following compressed discussion concerns differences of
RecentChanges and newRecentChanges with respect to deletes:
Two-phase delete is a vestigial feature. In the old days,
PageHistory didn't exist, and two-phase delete was the only way (aside from offline backups) to recover page content after deletion. That is no longer the case, of course. If
RecentChangesJunkies are concerned about pages disappearing without their review, they are free to use
NewRecentChanges with the ?del=1 option.
I find
NewRecentChanges very good, just reversed a delete of W
elcomeVisitors because the size of change looks suspicious, but I also agree that it lacks the
UserName that yield information regarding confidence levels. Also using
PageHistory to restore is cumbersome and if the delete on the last day of the month is not discovered quickly, the history would be gone.
Some
WikiGnomes make a point of checking and fixing
BackLinks. That's a lot easier to do with a semi-deleted page before it disappears into the
PageHistory. Plus, the
BackLink indexer is updated only once every 24 hours. It's satisfying to finish a page deletion
after the indexer has done its job. So a two-phase delete is still a useful feature. It means, "Sometime in the next 24 hours or so you should make sure the
BackLinks are fixed."
I don't see how that complicates fixing backlinks. Using
NewRecentChanges?del=1, click the most recent diff link, then click the page title twice. The same search is performed as would be if the page still existed. But in most cases of page deletions, I would recommend fixing the backlinks first - or, depending on the circumstance, leaving the links in place for future
AccidentalLinking use.
NewRecentChanges doesn't tell who edited the page most recently. Knowing that gives me a clue how much further work might need to be done.
Spam is easier fought with
NewRecentChanges because of the ability to see patterns, as you acknowledged. But in the case of vandalism, it is also helpful. You can see a pattern of alternating "+" and "-", to indicate a revert war, or alternating "new" and "delete" to indicate a delete war. That information is lost on
QuickChanges and
RecentChanges. Further, the last-edit
UserName has no guarantee of accuracy - vandals can easily forge it. It is not a reliable tool for fighting vandalism.
RecentChanges and
NewRecentChanges have different features. I find
NewRecentChanges less useful for what
I like to do.
CategoryWikiUser,
CategoryWikiMaintenance