8 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Sometimes users accidentally post credentials or sensitive information in their posts. Although it's easy to edit those post then, the revision list will still show that information.

Deleting the post would be an option, but I assume it will also be somewhat annoying to users, even if it's for their own security. Plus, 10k+ users would still be able to see the post anyway. Our current approach is to ping a community manager who will then destroy the revision. Until that happens, the user's credentials are vulnerable to theft. Thus, to be able to better protect our users and react more quickly, moderators should be able to hide revisions. That would be like providing first aid until the doctor comes.

Possible implementations could be to have a link at each revision to hide the revision (maybe with possible undo). Or a link to flag them to Community managers, which would then hide the revisions until handled and also takes care of the pinging.

To go along with that, we could also introduce a separate flag reason for users that says "Contains credentials, private information or malware". These flags could then show up in the mod flag queue. Since we could filter for those then, we could give them priority handling instead of stumbling over them in "Other".

Note: there is a similar feature request in http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/166453/edit-revisions-possibility-to-hide-a-revision-for-users-with-the-edit-priviledEdit revisions - possibility to hide a revision for users with the Edit priviledge (2000+ rep) already, but it asks for a user privilege, not a mod-tool. The Accepted Answer suggests to flag such posts. But like explained above, that doesn't help when moderators have to escalate this to a community manager as well.

Note: There is also http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/111754/ability-for-mods-to-hard-delete-a-question-or-revisionsAbility for mods to hard-delete a question or revisions. It addresses the same problem, but suggests a different implementation. Personally, I'd like hiding better than hard deletion by consensus. We cannot really hard delete anything so hiding would be in accordance with our other options. Also, when the aim is to protect a user quickly, we should be able to take action without having to wait for a consensus.

Sometimes users accidentally post credentials or sensitive information in their posts. Although it's easy to edit those post then, the revision list will still show that information.

Deleting the post would be an option, but I assume it will also be somewhat annoying to users, even if it's for their own security. Plus, 10k+ users would still be able to see the post anyway. Our current approach is to ping a community manager who will then destroy the revision. Until that happens, the user's credentials are vulnerable to theft. Thus, to be able to better protect our users and react more quickly, moderators should be able to hide revisions. That would be like providing first aid until the doctor comes.

Possible implementations could be to have a link at each revision to hide the revision (maybe with possible undo). Or a link to flag them to Community managers, which would then hide the revisions until handled and also takes care of the pinging.

To go along with that, we could also introduce a separate flag reason for users that says "Contains credentials, private information or malware". These flags could then show up in the mod flag queue. Since we could filter for those then, we could give them priority handling instead of stumbling over them in "Other".

Note: there is a similar feature request in http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/166453/edit-revisions-possibility-to-hide-a-revision-for-users-with-the-edit-priviled already, but it asks for a user privilege, not a mod-tool. The Accepted Answer suggests to flag such posts. But like explained above, that doesn't help when moderators have to escalate this to a community manager as well.

Note: There is also http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/111754/ability-for-mods-to-hard-delete-a-question-or-revisions. It addresses the same problem, but suggests a different implementation. Personally, I'd like hiding better than hard deletion by consensus. We cannot really hard delete anything so hiding would be in accordance with our other options. Also, when the aim is to protect a user quickly, we should be able to take action without having to wait for a consensus.

Sometimes users accidentally post credentials or sensitive information in their posts. Although it's easy to edit those post then, the revision list will still show that information.

Deleting the post would be an option, but I assume it will also be somewhat annoying to users, even if it's for their own security. Plus, 10k+ users would still be able to see the post anyway. Our current approach is to ping a community manager who will then destroy the revision. Until that happens, the user's credentials are vulnerable to theft. Thus, to be able to better protect our users and react more quickly, moderators should be able to hide revisions. That would be like providing first aid until the doctor comes.

Possible implementations could be to have a link at each revision to hide the revision (maybe with possible undo). Or a link to flag them to Community managers, which would then hide the revisions until handled and also takes care of the pinging.

To go along with that, we could also introduce a separate flag reason for users that says "Contains credentials, private information or malware". These flags could then show up in the mod flag queue. Since we could filter for those then, we could give them priority handling instead of stumbling over them in "Other".

Note: there is a similar feature request in Edit revisions - possibility to hide a revision for users with the Edit priviledge (2000+ rep) already, but it asks for a user privilege, not a mod-tool. The Accepted Answer suggests to flag such posts. But like explained above, that doesn't help when moderators have to escalate this to a community manager as well.

Note: There is also Ability for mods to hard-delete a question or revisions. It addresses the same problem, but suggests a different implementation. Personally, I'd like hiding better than hard deletion by consensus. We cannot really hard delete anything so hiding would be in accordance with our other options. Also, when the aim is to protect a user quickly, we should be able to take action without having to wait for a consensus.

7 edited tags
| link
6 edited tags
| link
5 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link
    Notice removed Draw attention by Andrew Barber
    Bounty Ended with Tim Post's answer chosen by Andrew Barber
    Notice added Draw attention by Andrew Barber
    Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Andrew Barber
    Post Reopened by Gordon
    Post Closed as "duplicate" by Cody Gray, hims056, Tobias Kienzler, Martijn Pieters, Rory of
4 explained why the suggested dupe is different and added a new idea about a flag reason
source | link
3 moar spehling
source | link
2 zpehling and grammah bcoz boltwatch things its impotent
source | link
1
source | link