Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion

Previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Selective deletion

Please make it easier to request RevDel

There's no good reason why it's easier to request Oversight of an edit than it is to request Revision deletion—but it is. A concerned editor need only visit Special:EmailUser/Oversight (there's a convenient link at the top of WP:Oversight), type a short message, and she or he is finished.

To request RevDel, on the other hand, a concerned editor is advised to hunt down an administrator who may be active from a long list of administrators, or to learn how to use IRC. But don't post it on a noticeboard. No, that might be too convenient.

Why don't you ask one of the oversighters how to set up a mailbox similar to theirs, and make it as easy to request RevDel as it is to request Oversight? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The oversight team has a well-staffed mailing list and OTRS queue with round-the-clock coverage; for this kind of solution to work we would need the same kind of arrangement for revDel-willing administrators. I'd worry it would create Yet Another Backlog. Creation of an administrators mailing list would also be subject to concerns about reducing transparency. Perhaps an RFC to gather opinions on the idea? (The technical implementation is easy.) –xeno^talk 11:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Transparency? What transparency? We're talking about things that should be hidden from the edit history. Currently, editors are recommended to use IRC. Transparency. You really crack me up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Appeal of RevDel usage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, the policy states the following about appealing RevDel.

"Actions performed using this tool remain visible in the public logs. They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus. As with other administrative tools, good judgment and appropriate use are expected; improper use can lead to sanctions or desysopping."

Additionally, the section on misuse reads:

"Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed."

There was disagreement surrounding a recent discussion at ANI about how RevDel appeals should take place, and this RfC seeks to make the process more clear. ~ Rob^Talk 23:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Question 1

1) In cases where non-administrators know enough about the redacted material to evaluate whether revision deletion is appropriate, can they weigh in on a discussion regarding whether revision deletion was appropriate? More specifically, do their contributions to such a discussion contribute to consensus?

Yes

• Yes, non-administrators should be able to contribute to such discussions when they can do so from an informed perspective. Adminship is about tools, not a leadership role, and the broader community should have a role in examining the use of tools if they have the technical ability to have an informed position in such a discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - One could already read Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Appeal and discussion of actions "[deletion reviews] are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus." this way. Regardless of which way this goes, clearing up the ambiguity with a clarification is due.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: Obvious interpretation is obvious. The restriction to administrators is only there because only they can normally see the revdeled material. WP:REVDEL clearly says that only clear-cut cases with little likelihood of dissent should be revdeled. A community discussion can indicate dissent. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The only advantage admins have, in this case, is their access to the information. Just like any other area of editing here, anyone who knows what they're talking about may express their opinion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Characterizing an edit without repeating its content is most certainly not beyond serious editors. The biggest harm would be self-inflicted, editors operating on a faulty memory may mostly damage their own credibility. The harm of repeating deleted material is less in discussion space than in article space, and its likely to be redacted again very shortly. Balancing this potential harm against creating an artificial boundary between editors and admins, where typically DRV has none, I find myself in favour of unrestricted discussion. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, per Rob, and especially in the case under discussion (Washington Post text), the proposal makes sense. APerson (talk!) 01:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes if they know they can contribute, and if their recollection or what they say is wrong, then others that can really confirm, or really know can weigh in and contradict. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. If nothing else, this should be a case of IAR: the intent of the policy is that only admins can comment because only admins can know what was deleted. But that assumption is not true. Following the letter of the policy violates the intent of the policy. Of course, now that we've found the hole in the policy, we should fix it, not limit ourselves to using IAR. I am also astonished at how many of the "no" !votes are claiming that normal users shouldn't comment because they don't have access, when in this case they do have access. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No

• No This is one of the very rare instances I think adminship is needed to be a part of consensus. If you don't have access to the deleted material, then you don't have a basis for the opinion. Admin can not only "remember seeing it", they can go and review it while it is deleted. Non-admin can't do that, and allowing them to would defeat the purpose of Rev Del. This doesn't mean that an editor that did see it can't opine, but if you open it up, then some people are demanding it be undeleted for review (no chance that is going to happen), so the community can decide. Or you get piling on by people who simply claim to have seen it, or are basing their opinions on what other people in the discussion are saying. Rev Del is a very sensitive tool that the WMF legal team requires you have adminship to access. Admin were specifically selected to be trusted to do this, subject to review by other admin, and accountable for how they use it, all the way up to Arb. Other actions should and are reviewable by the community, but you can't review what you can't see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: This is specifically talking about text anyone can see. The text in question was a passage from a Washington Post article. Anyone can read it, once a link is provided (nobody, on any side, objected to the link). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And I don't mind making exceptions, and will always listen to non-admin familiar anyway (as will most admin), but I think you need to keep the policy limited to those with full access. It is a can of worms that can lead to piling on by people who are just piling on to defend someone when they don't really have a clue. Anyone that knows me knows I'm extremely outspoken about non-admin having equal say and have supported that for years, but if the paper misquotes, gives improper context, etc. then you have a bad situation. There is no substitute for direct access, so this is about a technical limitation, not about trust of someone who can actually see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, my concerns are similar to Dennis Brown. We don't want a consensus to be built upon what a user recalls seeing. It's possible this could differ from what actually was written. In addition, we have no way of proving that an editor has seen the revision deleted edit(s) short of discussing the text. (Which defeats the purpose of revision deleting a comment anyways.) I'm also afraid that we run the risk of editors "piling on" in support of another fellow contributor, even if they have not reviewed the edit. Finally, this would encourage editors to "be on the lookout" for the contents of revision deleted content before it is removed from public view just so they can be part of the discussion. Mike V • Talk 03:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• No. I would like to say yes, that the view of any editor would count, but there are two points against it. First, if you can't see the deleted text, and other deleted text that might be relevant, you're not able to reach a decision. Trying to judge the issue based on memory and without context might not always work. Second, opening the discussion up might mean that those who had posted the text in the first place, or who supported it being posted, could join together to try to force the undeletion. Undeletions and discussions draw even more attention to issues that are often very sensitive. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• No. Usually I'm on the opposite side of this fence, but the thing is, I do not trust Wikipedians as a group to keep their traps shut when they don't know what they're talking about. At least with admins you know they should know. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are these know-nothings the same people who elected you and elected all the admins? I also notice a rather striking "class divide" among the answers here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You've read ANI before, right? ;)

The problem is that there's no way to verify a non-admin's memory of a deleted revision or ensure they've seen all the relevant material without discussing it in enough detail to defeat the purpose of the revdel. DRV can solve this by temporarily restoring deleted content if necessary, but obviously that doesn't work if the material is sensitive (and most disputed revdels will be, basically, subjective differences of opinion on how sensitive something is). It's a matter of practicality. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with her on this issue, but I would consider OR one of the strongest advocates of non-admins being able to contribute as much as technically possible. There is a regrettable class divide on Wikipedia, but OR is part of the solution, not the problem. Her criticism is valid, even if I disagree. There are certainly some editors who would attempt to contribute to a discussion when they actually have no idea what's been RevDel'd, and it would take some effort from a closer to determine whether a position was informed. I think a decent closer could definitely do that, though, which I think is where OR and I will disagree. ~ Rob^Talk 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My usual chapter-and-verse on this issue is that adminship is essentially a technical role - you have more buttons on your interface - and it should provide no advantage in making essentially social decisions, like closing a discussion. The current question strikes me as a technical matter; only people with the right interface buttons can see the material. If participation is open to anyone who happened to see it pre-revdel, the effect is that the closer will rely to a greater than usual degree on their personal familiarity with the non-admins to judge their contribution. That's worse if the concern is some kind of perceived social inequality. (A relevant question: exactly the same logic could be applied to say that anyone who saw suppressible material should be able to weigh in if the suppression is questioned. What if anything differentiates the two cases?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Before you start a discussion about a "class divide" here, you should go check out the gender divide in the ANI case and consider it.--v/r - TP 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• No I agree with Dennis and Opabinia regalis on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Question 2

2) If there is no consensus for or against revision deletion, should the redacted material remain deleted? In other words, is the burden of showing consensus on the administrator who used RevDel or the editor(s) disagreeing with the use of RevDel?

Default to no action (RevDel remains)

• Support but... this policy is actually irrelevant to most contentious cases. The problem is, that a significant number of contentious revision deletions are on BLP grounds and that policy is quite clear that the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material ... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. In my experience this section of WP:BLP has widespread support. Unless extra positions are added to the RFC, Default to no action is the only consistent option. In truth, of course, the outcome of this part of the RFC is irrelevant as BLP is always going to take precedence. CIreland (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @CIreland: WP:BLP makes no reference to revision deletion, and it's a bit of a stretch to say that we're required not only to remove violating content but to revision delete it. The criteria for revision deletion requires material to be "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", which does not include most BLP violations. ~ Rob^Talk 03:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that revision deletion is required for BLP issues, rather consensus is required for undeletion. Further, the criterion you quote (criterion 2) is not the only criterion used for BLP violations. Criteria 3, 4 and 5 are also frequently applicable. CIreland (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Most of these deletions are BLP issues, so the default has to be that they remain deleted unless a consensus of admins emerges that the deletion wasn't appropriate. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support just about everywhere, "no consensus" means "default to status quo". There's no reason to make this particular, unusual situation an exception. If anything, it's the opposite; if a reasonable subset of admins reviewing the situation think something is "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", then it would come off as callous to insist the offensive material must be restored on a technicality. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support The default is to leave as status quo, but more importantly, when it comes to "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", you err on the side of caution, which is to leave it deleted. The same is true with all BLP, if in doubt, leave it out. Other polices (like BLP) come into play where you can't make a hard rule like this anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support The open ended nature of the question appears to apply to RD in general. At the very least RD1 should default to delete, per the precautionary principle. Same with contentious BLP material. In particular for the latter, POV pushers can very easily appear in sufficient numbers on a discussion to create an impression of a contentious use of RevDel, to restore unsuitable material that fits an agenda. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support If there is no consensus to change it, it can remain. If one admin is passionate about reversing, they can reverse it and then a discussion can ensue. A "no consensus" on that would leave it as the second admin reverted. It is like a speedy deletion followed by a deletion review ———— a no consensus deletion review would leave it deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - RevDel is, in some ways, like speedy deletion. Just like if speedy deleted content doesn't get a consensus to be restored it stays deleted, same is true about RevDel. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support on the principle that the status quo should always prevail. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)`

Default to undoing RevDel

• Support defaulting to reversal of deletion. As stated in the Misuse section of the policy, "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed." This makes it fairly clear that RevDel is not appropriate where there will be "significant dissent" toward its use. It makes perfect sense to follow through by undoing the revision deletion when "significant dissent" is encountered and a "no consensus" outcome is reached. ~ Rob^Talk 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: per my comment in the section above. RevDels are for clear-cut cases, as specifically mentioned in policy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

You are unnecessarily abbreviating one criteria for rev deletion. The entirety of the criteria (and another criteria that might apply in this situation) is:

*"Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs."

*"Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links."
Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The quoted portion is not from this text, but from the section WP:REVDEL#Misuse. I have added it now to the header. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: This RfC is not meant to address the specific situation at ANI, which is why I didn't include specific criteria that are relevant to that discussion. This RfC is more broadly trying to determine how appeals should take place - whether non-admins should be involved and whether the default is restoration or removal. In other words, does the RevDeling administrator have the burden of defending their usage of RevDel (rather than other editors having the burden to challenge that usage) and who does he or she have to defend it to? ~ Rob^Talk 01:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: In response to your support for no action above, I would actually call no action the exception in this situation. Normally, we resolve disagreements using the bold, revert, discuss method. BRD defaults to the status quo of whatever existed before the bold action in the event of no consensus. Here, we have bold, discuss, no action, which defaults to the bold use of RevDel. Is it really the status quo for a single editor to use RevDel unilaterally, with a clearly demonstrated lack of consensus for the action? ~ Rob^Talk 08:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • BRD is fundamentally about editing and is less applicable to admin actions. It may only be a "wheel war" on the third revert, but it's still impolite at best to unilaterally reverse another admin on grounds of "I disagree" rather than clear evidence of error, especially when no other editor is immediately affected by the action (as in, say, a bad block). Challenges of admin actions with no consensus to overturn generally leave them as implemented.
    As for the particular case that prompted this RfC, I am not convinced the project's biggest dramaboard is a good venue in which to review deletion of sensitive material, for the same reason it's a bad venue for requesting revdel in the first place. I'd probably care less about this if the review happened in a place less well-known for attracting low-quality drama-mongering commentary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting point. I think it would be uncontroversial to add to the policy that an appeal should be made at WP:AN, not WP:ANI, where there's a lower traffic among non-admins and a higher traffic among admins. This is also in line with similar processes, such as WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which goes to AN. I can't see any reasonable person disagreeing with that slight change, so I'm going to make it. ~ Rob^Talk 02:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Did I really hear this right? The reason for choosing WP:AN instead of WP:ANI is that there is lower traffic among non-admins? And I am the one who gets upbraided for bringing up "class divide"? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, non-admins was bad word choice. I meant "inexperienced users". In other words, it keeps the visibility down a bit if the discussion involves actual grossly offensive BLP violations, which is desirable. ANI has a huge traffic including many users who don't care to weigh in on this sort of discussion. It makes little sense to talk about revision deleted material in front of them. ~ Rob^Talk 03:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am as much disgusted by WP:ANI as anyone else: however, I have no more confidence in Arbs or Admins as compared to the people who lurk there. For better or worse, that is the place where non-admins weigh in regularly. As to concerns about drama: does anyone object to the WP:ANI discussion linked in the OP? As far as I can see, It was remarkably free from drama. I have discovered from some experience that a straight yes/no survey cuts down on drama by 90%. Speaking generally: there is no need to copy the revdeled material into ANI for discussing it: I managed to do it without this (even though I considered it idiotic). If people want to get rid of WP:ANI from Wikipedia, then propose that. Otherwise I see no principled objection to WP:ANI here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Many decisions at ANI can be made without an admin talking or acting, which is not the case at AN. It is reserved for issues that are primarily admin centered or need the tools. This includes announcements and the like that ANI doesn't get. I think of ANI as more of a fire/police station where we need to deal with problems fairly quick and everyone's opinion is the same. I see AN as more of a giant conference table where things are deliberated a bit slower and the issues aren't as urgent. It has always been reserved for ban discussions and like, including things that require the tools. Non-admin don't have access to deleted contribs, for example, but often admin will quote or undelete so non-admin can see and participate. That is why cases about admin accountability should be there as well. ANI can't be gotten rid of, it has taken on the responsibility of WP:WQA, WP:RFCU and the like, and is the best place for behavior problems. Still, AN is better for technical issues and general reviews. They both exist for different reasons. I for incidents, general noticeboard for admin related issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

AN is better, but that just means it's now on the project's second-biggest dramaboard ;) If "matters pertaining to sensitive material shouldn't be discussed in the most public and drama-filled venue short of Jimbo's talkpage" doesn't count as a "principled objection", I don't know what would.

As for the original ANI thread, I find it rather unsatisfying, actually, although not in a way that would really be addressed by a change of venue. I see a conversation among mostly men about an action taken by a female admin to redact material about a female harassment victim. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We are pretty good at dealing with lots of things here except real human beings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Amendment of Block Log Rev Del Policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose the following amendment to the section titled "Log Redaction":

Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool. However, the intentional or negligent misuse of the block tool is not an ordinary matter and an editor who has been blocked in error may have the erroneous block and unblock lines of the block log RevisionDeleted on request. “Blocked in error” does not mean a block that is overturned or shortened on appeal, but, rather, a block that either (a) Arbcom has determined constituted an intentional or negligent misuse of the admin toolset, (b) a consensus at ANI has determined was a “bad block,” or, (c) the blocking admin has acknowledged the block was made in error or as a result of some misunderstanding by her/him. Immediately after RevisionDeleting any portion of a block log, an administrator must seek Oversighter review.

LavaBaron (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Support

• Support as Proposer - my rationale for this amendment is that I was recently subject to an erroneous block. Prior to this I had a clean block log. My block log is now permanently marked; there is no way to clean, and no way for me to undo, some else's mistake. Even in serious criminal matters it is possible to have an arrest record sealed if the arrest was made in error. It is incomprehensible that a block log error should haunt an otherwise capable Wikipedian for, essentially, eternity. Our own, existing, policies (WP:BLOCKNO) acknowledge the impact a scarred block log has on editors-

Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating.

-and yet we prohibit editors accidentally blocked from seeking any alleviation from "punishment and humiliation"; the only amelioration is (sincere) condolences. Adopting this amendment would still allow admins to view the unaltered log, it would simply obfuscate blocks made as a result of errors (covering everything from the cat walked across an admin's keyboard, to whatever) from the public-at-large. LavaBaron (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose I'm quite against this, particularly because of part (b). ANI can receive a selective audience based upon when a post is made, who follows the ANI noticeboard, and how quickly a thread is closed. I'm not comfortable with hiding something from public view based upon popular opinion. I'm also concerned about the potential of abuse through point (c). If a log is completely redacted, no one but administrators will be able to see the blocking admin or the blocking rationale. Hiding this from public view would decrease transparency, which is something that the community has generally discouraged. In addition, I believe it's misunderstood that that log will "disappear". It will only be redacted, which could create more issues than it solves. (e.g. Editors trying to figure out what was redacted and why.)

The portion of the blocking policy that you cited does not apply here. That policy discourages admins from making short duration blocks (e.g. 1 minute) to leave a record of a warning. Right below that it states, Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired. (If it has not, the message may be recorded in the unblocking reason.) This is more than sufficient to allow the correction of an error. Any reasonable editor should be able to review the block log and see that the block was made in error or was overturned. Finally, I'm also not sure why you are recommending the oversight team to review the revision deletion since suppression would not be utilized here. If you wanted the oversight team to serve as a "review board" you would need a larger RfC as that would expand the remit of the oversight group. Mike V • Talk 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose more or less per Mike V. Also redacting bad blocks would remove from public view evidence that might later need to be used against a malfeasant administrator. BethNaught (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I can see some argument in support of removing total errors, such as mis-clicks and mis-identification, but also think they are usually cancelled out by the unblock. However negligence and intentional misuse are things which shouldn't usually be hidden (I'm thinking here about scrutiny of admin actions rather than the blocked editor). I'm absolutely not in favour of "a consensus at ANI has determined was a “bad block", since consensus on community boards, especially at WP:CESSPIT is often hurried, controversial, and can often suck. Also, let's not dump stuff on Oversighters. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that all bad blocks result in a 24-hour block for the blocking admin to ensure creation of a standing record that allows "scrutiny of admin actions" but I can imagine the absolute howls of protest and horrified undulations that would produce. LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

A trouting is the traditional treatment for admin blunders. But warnings and admonishments could also be appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not out for revenge. I'm out for restorative justice. I would like my clean block log restored; an admin being warned or admonished is irrelevant to me. There's no reason I should, though no fault of my own, have to live with someone's mistake for the next 50 years when there is an easy technological capacity to correct it. LavaBaron (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never done a RevDel on a log entry, but when one is done on a normal article revision, it does not diappear from the history. It is still apparent that there was an entry, but just what it was is hidden. In a block log, that would be more alarming than a block followed by an unblock with edit summary saying that the block was mistaken. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If I looked at a block log and find that reason, blocker etc were crossed off due to log entry redaction, that would still look suspicious, and would raise questions that are not answered. A block log having entries is not as serious as it sounds above. In the case mentioned above, it is more about showing a change of mind by the admin. The log entries show that, and the unblock shows that the block was reconsidered. The block was announced on the talk page as well. But a user is permitted to remove that announcement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"Not as serious" is not the same thing as "equal to a clean block log." The imposition of even a 1-percent de-weighting of my reputation as a Wikipedian is 1-percent more than I deserve for an error of someone else's design. The possibility that I might ever be forced to dig-up diffs or pound-out explanations, when my block log is used as a cudgel in discussion to delegitimize my opinion (as I've seen it done in other cases), is an encumbrance I should not have to bear for someone else's mistake. The fact that this is infinitely permanent - it will be here 2, 5, 10, 30 years from now - compounds each of these molestations by a factor of 2, 5, 10, or 30 times. LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to having erronous blocks removed from block logs, and I see no convincing argument against such a thing. That being said, I believe this will largely be a technical issue, which is something I'm not fit to get involved with. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In an instant

I suggest we change

It is not necessary that the target is identifiable. It is sufficient that it appears to refer to some real person, organization, or group, or could be intended to suggest a specific target to the right reader. For example a smear could target a person known locally by a nickname or other allusion that no Wikipedia administrator has heard of, but that is instantly recognizable to people in that school, town, or social community.

by removing the word instantly. I don't think the policy is meant to protect only "instantly" recognizable targets. (I made this change already [1] but was reverted.) EEng 02:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this change. It doesn't broaden existing policy. It doesn't matter if someone is recognisable after two seconds or ten minutes, if they going to be recognised it's going to get deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I might suggest "possibly", just for clarity's sake, but I'm not hung up on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Support this common-sense improvement that removes an absurdity. If no administrator has heard of the nickname or allusion, how would any of them know whether it's instantly recognizable to others? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Change RD1-wording

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've read WP:RD1 a few times, and requested deletions for it with {{copyvio-revdel}}. Many users understand what to do, but some user do not wwish to fufill such request, since another user may have edited the article while the bad content was still there, and that there attribution needs to be kept. The fact is that only the username needs to be attributed, not the diff of the edit. Therefore, I ask for a clearer wording of WP:RD1 as following:

Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

to

Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. Redacting a revision should not remove any contributor's attribution. Usernames and IP addresses should not be hidden, only the revisions themself. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

(t) Josve05a (c) 04:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support this makes sense to me. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Wording of criteria should be clear to both all parties, without assuming that they know the details of the licensing rules besides a basic understanding of what constitutes permissible/impermissible copying. See my even simpler wording suggestion below. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as a harmless codification of current practice. Even if there are intermediary edits, the problem is that even those intermediary revisions still contain copyright infringing content that needs to be removed. It sometimes comes at the cost of eliminating who-did-what, and administrators can still exercise their discretion whether to carry out the deletion (this proposal doesn't change that, as far as I can tell). But Josve05a is correct that legally, all that's necessary for attribution is the username, and the removal of who-did-what is sometimes necessary to more thoroughly delete copyright infringing content. Mz7 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - if someone makes intermediary edits elsewhere in the article between the insertion and deletion of the violating text, those revisions should not be deleted. This change in policy would mean they are deleted. Stickee (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
   • Yes they should. Since the revisions still contain copyright violations, and ince we distribute WP:DUMPS such revisions which are violations need to be deleted. Not just the revision where it was added. (t) Josve05a (c) 03:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Maybe there is a good idea there, but as written this furthers logical scrambling. The whole subject text is to provide one authorizing-reason for deletion, and place conditions on use of that particular reason. The revised text takes out that "condition" wording and inserts some general info on deleting in copyvio situations. Possibly it was intended to modify the conditions for use of this item, but as written it does not. Also, if it is going to be changed, why not also fix the last phrase which is also logically mixed up. This whole item provides one authorizing-reason. What the heck does "take precedence over" an authorizing-reason mean? It probably meant taking precedence over the "conditions" part of this item. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
   • The "take precedence over" i part of the exisitng criteria, and is not suggested to be added or changed. Feel free to tart another RfC, or an "option 2" to remove it. (t) Josve05a (c) 03:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose The assertion that all that is needed is a username in the revision history doesn't add up. If there is more than one edit, then who did what is lost when the revisions are deleted. Simply removing copyvios is usually sufficient anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
   • "Who did what" is not needed for proper attribution according to the license. And no, just removing copyio from 'live verions' is not sufficient, that' why we have this criteria, due to WP:DUMPS etc. (t) Josve05a (c) 03:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   I don't agree that the benefit of doing this is worth the loss of the revision history if there were multiple, substantive intervening edits, regardless of what the license says. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   This has been established practice for over a decade, way before revision deletion was activated, using the much cruder selective deletion method. RevDel made it easier to ensure that the list of contributors would be preserved. This proposal here changes nothing to that practice. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not at all sure I follow your line of reasoning there, you seem to be saying that despite there being proposed new wording that changes when this criterion would be used, when this criterion could be used will not actually change. If it isn't a change then... what is it and why are we even talking about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   I believe the OP wants to codify the existing practice in a different language. I don't believe the proposal really changes anything in a long established practice. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   No, it doesn't change anything, just the wording of the criteria, since currently it sounds as though you can't do revdels if there are multiple editors involved (multiple revs), but since only names need to "stay" for attribution, the part with "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution" doesn't make any sense. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Could simplify it even further: "Blatant copyright violations. In order to maintain attribution, only the content of the offending revisions should be hidden, not the usernames or IP addresses associated with them. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at ..." — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:BLP-revdel

Heads up that an IP has created the above template via the AfC process, and User:333-blue accepted it. It does what it says on the tin, essentially the same thing as {{copyvio-revdel}} but for BLP violations (R2). I have tagged it with {{db-t2}}, since this directly contradicts the policy page which states that "To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under other circumstances.". — Train2104 (t • c) 21:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Weird grey lines that no one can click on

The result of Revision deletion is weird grey lines on history pages that no one can click on. They should have a mouseover added explaining what is going on. Jidanni (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is a mouseover needed, when the "weird grey lines" are things like the text "Edit summary deleted" that have been struck through? —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying limitations

Added a section clarifying some of the technical limitations when third parties store revisions. Specifically:

1. The fact that third parties can store revision content before a RevDel occurs
2. Spotting a RevDel and unearthing its content is straightforward, even when suppression mode is used

Most people don't have the resources or interest to deal with the hassle of running scripts and storing / comparing multiple copies of Wikipedia. So at the moment, the risk of RevDel content being revealed is low. And given 80% of RevDels are removals of obvious libel and plagiarism, a hypothetical Twitter RevDel Streisand stream would quickly get taken down.

But to the point: I have no moral qualms with this warning doubling as a set of instructions, but I'm curious if anyone does. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RD2

What's the point of RD2 anyway? Isn't any Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material also going to be Purely disruptive material? For example, if I create Person's Name Here is a Nazi or fill a page with obscenities targeted at a specific person, won't that be purely disruptive material too? Or is the criterion's scope larger than I'm understanding? Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Borrowing this from my OS application, but this is how I explained it then with a few tweaks: RD2 focuses on content that could be grossly insulting or degrading or is a gross BLP violation. The focus is on the content that is objectively offensive to the point of causing harm to persons or BLP violations that are so bad that the public shouldn't see it.

RD3 focuses on disruption to the project where the revision still being visible, even if reverted, would cause disruption by still allowing people to view it. Probably the most frequent area that I use it in is harassment of other users, but also includes things such as malicious links, personal attacks, and threats of violence. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about what Revision delete can and can't do

I know that Revision delete can show and hide the contents of the revision, the edit summary of the revision, the name of the user/IP address that made the edit, or any combination of those three. But I wondered whether it would be possible to normally delete a single revision, pretty much the same way that normal delete is used, but only one revision obviously. Or can it only hide revision information so users without (deleterevision) cannot view it? Sorry if it's hard to understand what I'm asking. I just wanted clarification on whether Revision delete can be used to delete a singular revision more or less the way normal delete deletes all revisions. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Revision delete can't do that, if I were to revision delete everything in a revision (content, editor and summary) all three would be crossed out. However, "normal" deletion can be used to do this by deleting the whole page then restoring all revisions except the target one. To a non-admin editor the target revision would have disappeared from the page history, with just the deletion log entries as evidence of what was done. Hope that answers your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, right. I just wanted to confirm whether or not Revision delete was able to do that. Since it's not exactly clear what Revision delete is capable of, if one were to look at Special:ListGroupRights alone. "Delete and undelete specific revisions of pages (deleterevision)" There was a time where I believed that Revision delete was just a combination of delete and undelete, but only focused on one revision at a time. But that was over a year ago. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You might be able to get some further information and ideas about what it does from mw:Help:RevisionDelete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It might have been more appropriate to call it revision hiding. Also it can hide log entries (perhaps a vandal moved a page to a disruptive name). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How to request non-copyvio RevDel

Hi all,

I've requested lots of RevDels for copyvio issues in the past - originally with the template, then via use of Enterprisey's RevDel tool.

How do I request a RevDel for any of the other criteria ("Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material")? The template only seems to cover CopyVio.

Tracking down one of the admins seems a bit tough, since I don't know who is online at any given moment and I don't use IRC.

Cheers,

Nosebagbear (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect or emailing an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: - as I noted I don't use IRC, so I will need to email hoping that the Admin has logged on.

I can buy the "No Noticeboard" reasoning, but does this not strike as a bonkers way of doing things - not having templates or a merged email set-up?

Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was answering with IRC in case anyone else looked at the header :) A template would attract more attention. An OTRS feed is what we have for OS, but I’m not sure it’d be ideal here (too much to clean up.) this tool is able to provide a list of recently active admins, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BLP-revdel

Template:BLP-revdel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of revdel to delete "ordinary" vandalism

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Speedy Closure - No context. Closing per WP:RFCEND. Masum Reza^📞 04:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Under what circumstances may revdel be used to delete "ordinary" vandalism that does not otherwise specifically fall under one of the criteria for redaction? --Pine (✉) 21:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Option 1: Never

The introductory statement in "Criteria for redaction" that currently reads "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct." is amended to read "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" vandalism, incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct."

• Support
• Oppose
• Neutral
• Discussion

• Summoned by bot, but this RfC could use more context. It sounds like it's asking "should we follow the criteria for redaction or not?" What is the reason here? What defines "ordinary"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Option 2: At administrator's discretion, not including the author's username

The introductory statement in "Criteria for redaction" that currently reads "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct." is amended to read "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct. RevisionDelete may be used to redact "ordinary" vandalism at the discretion of administrators, but the author's username should not be redacted unless the author's username violates Wikipedia policy."

• Support
• Oppose
• Neutral
• Discussion

Option 3: At administrator's discretion, including the author's username

The introductory statement in "Criteria for redaction" that currently reads "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct." is amended to read "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or claims of editorial misconduct. RevisionDelete may be used to redact "ordinary" vandalism, including the usernames of authors of vandalism, at the discretion of administrators."

• Support
• Oppose
• Neutral
• Discussion

Revdel RFC general discussion

Why has this somewhat-complicated RfC been set up without, so far as I can see, any prior discussion of (or even a link to) the incident (and presumably, there was an incident of some sort) that has prompted this? Have the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE been exhausted? Please describe why you think this RfC is necessary: for instance, has an admin been using revdel improperly? Are the present revdel criteria inadequate to cover a recent situation? I know of no circumstances when it is permissible to use revdel outside of the criteria already agreed. We do not make new rules without a demonstrable existence of a problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This also feels like instruction creep. It's implicit that ordinary vandalism does not require revdel. Conversely, any vandalism that requires revdel is not ordinary: there is some other factor in play, such as a gross BLP violation or personal attack, that clearly indicates revdel is appropriate. The only edge cases would be for something like block evasion and long-term abuse where an extra layer of denial of recognition is called for—and again, that's outside the realm of ordinary. I don't see why any change to the guidelines is necessary; I agree with Redrose64 that the proposer of this RfC has not demonstrated the need for the formal commenting process. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just been summoned here by bot and I'm also struggling to understand why this is an RFC - where is the context? Where is the prior discussion? What is the motivation? Why is change needed? Why is there not an explicit option for no change (the only thing I can support given the lack of answers to the other questions)? Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose speedy RfC closure - Agree with Thryduulf and you all. This RfC is malformed and should be closed. The comments so far are unanimous in expressing various amounts of incredulity. RevDel is a topic that needs community discussion and consensus prior to a RfC, if any. Personally, I don’t see a need for change in this area. Jusdafax (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: I agree a speedy close without prejudice to any future discussion and/or RfCs is probably the best way forwards here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Support speedy closure. – SJ + 18:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. What is this about? What is trying to be achieved? Why are we being presented with changes to text in such a way that it's a big headache to tell what's changed? What a mess? EEng 04:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Pine: I was also wondering about this. I recently noticed the revdel of what I had assumed was "ordinary" vandalism (on wheels). Looking at the examples listed for "RD3: Purely disruptive material", they all seem much more severe than this. Benjamin (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: If LTA vandalism is generally assumed not to be ordinary, perhaps the policy should clarify that? Benjamin (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Making a fuss about LTAs is very unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we are not going to write down precise rules about anything. Find something else to worry about. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why you think this is so trivial. I was under the impression that the community, when originally authorizing revdel, thought it important to prohibit its use for ordinary vandalism. That seems like something we ought to respect. Benjamin (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not say anything was trivial, and I do not think this issue is trivial. I am saying that WP:DENY is the best course of action. Are you really sure you want to take time to generate further argument around an LTA? Is that a worthwhile contribution? What I said is factual, see WP:BURO for example. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I agree that it's good to follow the principle rather than the letter of policy, but we should try to align them if we can. Benjamin (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Breaking the user interface

An issue came up today at WP:ANI#Edit-summary removed where an edit summary was removed because it broke the interface, making it difficult to read on some devices. I'm wondering, should we have a specific allowance for "breaks the interface", or does that just fit comfortably in "non-contentious housekeeping"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that RD6 ("non-contentious housekeeping") is completely wrong for this purpose. If it's to be done in a case like this, it's done with IAR. So-called "breaking the interface" is not a particularly sound reason for deletion, especially if it contains encyclopaedic content, and I wouldn't want to see it incorporated into policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, that language mirrors G6, which would definitely be applicable in cases like this if you were dealing with a page that disrupted the encyclopedia from a technical perspective and wasn't particularly vital (think someone's 1MB user subpage full of binary.) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It may have been running off of some screens, requiring scrolling to see it all, but while perhaps annoying and/or not visually appealing, it is still functional. I don't think RD should be used for this, in this policy or IAR. I would think the underlying issue is fixable with CSS (word-break). — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We did this when the long edit summaries were first introduced and people were messing around with them. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I don't think it's bad to have been done. As a whole, the community has gotten a lot more open to revision deletion as a tool than when the feature was first introduced. If you want a valid policy reason call it RD5/G6: technical housekeeping. I'm fine with also calling it IAR, but that is what having ambiguous policy lines exists for: to allow discretion in using it and to give a policy basis for IAR. Like I said, I'm not particularly sure it's something I would have done in this case, but I also don't see it as a big deal by any means, and I don't see a need to update the policy or make a case of it at ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Spam edit summary

A recent trivial edit has a lengthy product advertisement as its edit summary. This project page says that RevDel is for "not mere spam". What's the best way to deal with such cases? Certes (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Unambiguous advertising should be covered by c.5, as a reason to delete. The phrase "but not mere spam links" in c.3 seems to be saying that adding a [spammy] external link to a page is not purely disruptive. Editors may want a chance to discuss whether the link is appropriate.

Posting just a non-disruptive spam link in an edit summary seems less clear to me. I get spam like that on my blog... unfortunately we don't have a way to clean up the history page (hiding edit summaries from the default history-view while still giving readers a way to see them if they want) the way reversion cleans up the article itself. If spam like that becomes common, it might merit a clarification here. – SJ + 20:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Need clarification on RD2

@Ivanvector, QEDK, and Floquenbeam: I recently RD'2 another editor's edit comment (see User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 12#Your edit comment for background). I was surprised when I got pushback to this from several uninvolved editors, so I'm seeking clarification of proper usage of WP:RD2. I'm deliberately not bringing this WP:AN because I don't want to escalate this into enforcement (although, I am disappointed that Floquenbeam saw fit to do a run-around of my RD2 by copying the text of the edit comment into the talk page). I'm just looking for clarity as to what's considered acceptable in an edit comment, and when it's considered acceptable to RD2 stuff that isn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me the issue is whether saying that something is "fucked" is grossly offensive, or just offensive (or perhaps neither). If someone said that they fucked up an edit, would you be offended, or grossly offended? I would view it as several things, but grossly offensive wouldn't be one of them. I can imagine some scenarios where using that expression could be considered grossly offensive, but I don't think this is one of them. Is it civilised? probably not. Is it universally non-offensive? definitely not. But grossly offensive? hmmm not really. I would add, in some other cases your action might not have generated any complaints, and it would be a stretch to describe this as 'abuse of the tool'. Wrong and not typical, maybe, but not abuse. Can this be improved by clarifying policy? probably not. I suppose we could inject the word 'profanity' into "[this does not include] ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations", but I think that's already covered by the current wording. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe this was an appropriate use of RD2. Revision deletion is to be used sparingly, due to the ability to hide what was done by whom and with what reason. Page deletion is comparatively less intrusive. The bar for RD2, as I've understood it, hinges on the word "grossly". If any reasonable person would oppose revision deletion, then it doesn't meet RD2. Prodego ^talk 16:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a reply to RoySmith on my talk page ([2]) where I quoted all of the places in the policy where it specifies the tool is not for removing "ordinary" incivility. He replied ([3]) that he wasn't concerned with the substance of my edit summary commentary but only used the tool to suppress my use of profanity. I wouldn't describe that as abuse either as it was obviously in good faith, but it was not appropriate. The policy gives leeway to admins to use discretion and err on the side of caution, but censoring profanity is so far outside the scope of how this tool is permitted to be used as to suggest incompetence. I mean, we have repeatedly not got consensus that editors saying "fuck" on Wikipedia is actionable at all, and there have been many recent discussions on that word specifically (here are just a few): generalizing, a personal attack is actionable, but a comment is not automatically a personal attack just because of the use of profanity. And even if it were a personal attack, circle back to the "not for removing ordinary incivility" clause. There are examples linked from this page of what "grossly" intends: material that is seriously offensive, explicit threats of violence, and serious BLP violations; common profanity ("fuck you" is given as a specific example) is explicitly not allowed to be revdeleted. The policy does not need to be clarified, RoySmith simply needs to read it.

As I said in my linked reply I accept the criticism as to the nature of my edit summary and I'm not looking for it to be restored or for any other admin action here, and I was happy to have just thanked RoySmith for his action and comment and moved on. It's my talk page, I regularly reply to WP:FRS bot notifications about topics describing the decline of United States society with political and/or sarcastic comments (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and this one was more of the same, though perhaps a bit more pointed than some others. I'll refrain from using aggressive language in my edit summaries in the future. That should be the only action that comes out of all this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, this was a questionable exercise of revdel powers, I'm sure RoySmith didn't have bad intent so that's about it. The general sentiment here also makes it apparent that usage of profanity ≠ eligible for RD2. I think we can close this up now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Ivan. I would even go as far as to say that the term "fucked up" is potentially closer to "messed up" than to the term "fuck". I mean, saying "America is fucked up" is obviously and totally different from "fuck you America", right? Anyway, I don't think this needed to be revdelled. And Ivan's got his heart in the right place, so does Roy. Let's wrap this up. Lourdes 07:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• It is disheartening that language like this is considered acceptable. We're supposed to be working towards inclusiveness and a non-hostile environment. Use of aggressive and/or profane language is counter to those goals. That being said, it's clear that my revdel of this comment was beyond what's acceptable to revision policy, so I've reverted it. And I thank Ivanvector for their understanding. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Which option to pick for "Pro Tem" Rev-Del Oversighting? - Admin Query

I'm pretty new to the admin gig, so apologies if this is written down somewhere, but I've not been able to find it.

There are occasional cases where I find oversight-able material, which in line with both policy and good sense, I RevDel first as a pro tem measure, before hunting down an Oversighter for both review and full oversight.

When you select a RevDel option it gives a very clear instruction that the oversighting reasons are only for use by oversighters.

Is it best to use the "other reason" and write it all out or just use one of the OS reasons?

Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight Any log entry should not allude to the fact that the revision deleted material is potentially suppressible, this would invite scrutiny which is to be avoided. You could use RD3, or RD5 (deletion reasons 13 and 14 apply, and perhaps others - often 3 depending on the content). –xeno^talk 13:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, that makes sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A question on revision use

The upcoming Bond film No Time to Die has had the same IP editor add and remove a plot summary - but the film is not set to have a premiere for a month so either this IP is shooting the breeze or they actually actually revealing the plot through an inappropriate means (pirated a copy or broke an NDA, etc.) While other films this would not be a big problem, I could see potentially the Bond rights holders getting upset at WP for even having the plot in the edit history. Is a revdel appropriate to remove that content under the idea of a copyvio issue? It's not "blatant" as I'd read the term but would fall into the intent of why we'd want to hide it. --Masem (t) 21:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: The edits seem to originate from a registered user, so you could maybe discuss it with them. They claim it's an official plot from a private viewing. I don't know what 'official plot' means, but I think you'd have to assume there's at least some assumption of confidence. I'd view this as a rights/copyright issue, and think at least as a precaution, it's fair game for revdel RD1 (or maybe RD5 if you're being creative). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I missed that, but I guess what this means more broadly that if those of us with revdel have a reasonably strong concern that, under US fair use law, that some material added by editors that would otherwise tick off all the other boxes for a fair use defense except the aspect of commercial impact - in this case the plot summary for a highly-anticipated film not yet out in any type of public release - that that would be appropriate to use RevDel to remove those instances of it. We already use RevDel for outright copyvios (large chunks of copyrighted text, failing "minimal use" of a fair use defense) so this would follow from that. --Masem (t) 17:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's a very perceptive analysis! EEng 02:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I would not expect any less from Masem. Respectfully disagree with them though. Information about a movie being known before its release doesn't directly impact its commercial line. Case in point Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film of all time despite all the information that came out before its public release. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's for the copyright holder to decide. That's what copyright means. EEng 15:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well the diffs are still visible at the moment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a second opinion

I tagged the talk page for Digitalplanethub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a spamuser template. It was declined which is the first time that has ever happened to me. You can see the discussion about that here User_talk:Cabayi#Question. Please note I understand Cabayi's reasoning but, as they suggested getting a second opinion I wanted to double check on this situation. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

How do I quickly get things revision-deleted pending oversight?

At least twice in the last month I've emailed Oversight. It took over an hour in both cases. That was okay in those particular instances but in some cases it's too long.

What's the best off-wiki way to get the attention of logged-in administrators so they can quickly revision-delete pending Oversight in cases that need it without drawing attention (see Streisand effect).

Whatever the answer is, it should be added to this page and to WP:OVERSIGHT. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You can ask for revdel on #wikipedia-en-revdel^connect channel of Freenode IRC. This is already mentioned in #How to request Revision Deletion of this page. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what the response time is for that? Better than emailing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's better than emailing, You will mostly find active admins there. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Oversight has a note at the top saying "The fastest way to request oversight is to email the oversight team." if that means anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's truly something where the wait for oversight or revdel is too long, note that WP:EMERGENCY says, If in doubt, email the office at [email protected]. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: It's for oversight, my comment is for revdel. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj, David was asking about oversight I think not revdel. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: He said: "What's the best off-wiki way to get the attention of logged-in administrators so they can quickly revision-delete pending Oversight in cases that need it without drawing attention". Also if you don't want everyone in the channel (mostly admins, idling not allowed for non-admins) to see the edit(s) then you can just ask "any admin around?" and then PM whoever replies. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no good way to get material quickly revision deleted without drawing attention to the problem. Waiting an hour for oversight is probably ok but apart from IRC you can find recently active admins by looking, for example, at Special:Log/block. Then send two of them an email with the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Idea: "quiet mode" revision delete

I've mocked up a "quiet mode" for {{Copyvio-revdel}} that suppresses the message box if |quiet=anything. (sandbox diff, testcases, live example in User:Davidwr/sandbox with category).

An example is this revision which I will be requesting deletion for shortly. It's basically "db-spam" of an article that was hijacked.

This is just a mock-up for now: To use the mock-up version the administrator would have to remove the "quiet" parameter then preview the page to see the revisions that needed deleting.

If there is interest, I'll make a general-purpose "revision delete" template for cases where oversight is not needed and where there are no other privacy, WP:DENY, or other reasons to completely hide the request.

I can also see something like this being used for all revision deletions, even oversightable ones, in cooperation with a private "warning/no-save-allowed" edit filter that, when activated, would send an alert to the IRC channel. It would mean oversighters would need visibility to that edit filter's log though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What specifically is the motivation here--to allow flagging down sysops for revdel requests without defacing articles for readers? I like it!

Have you considered implementing this with, for example, the "sysop-show" CSS class? You could hide the template from readers, but admins wouldn't have to edit the page to be able to view the template. Or you could pick another user level from those available at MediaWiki:Common.css. BethNaught (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The motivation was to avoid having to flag down sysops on their own talk pages or via email, while keeping things as low-key as possible. Obviously, this would still attract a little attention from people who watch edit logs, but for super-sensitive things, well, that's what IRC and email are for. I was not aware of the "sysop-show" CSS class. That makes this much easier to do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

RevDel for Dummies

Is there a "Here's how to RevDel" anywhere? This page is so long that I'm having a hard time figuring out just the nuts and bolts of what it does and doesn't do. :D —valereee (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: You could try Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide/Deleting#Deleting_a_revision. There's no substitute for practice, and it mentions a page you can practise on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, thank you! That is exactly what I need! :D —valereee (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

RD1, attribution and intervening edits

When cleaning up copyright violations, it's standard practice to revdel the portion of the history that's between the addition of the copyvio and its removal. But how about when there's a fair number of intervening edits? Should they be revdelled, even if there's many of them and they have resulted in substantial content addition?

The WP:RD1 criterion currently reads:

Blatant violations of the copyright policy that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

There's also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins, which has the following advice for handling the history of pages with copyright violations:

It may be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive. Otherwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it.

What I take away from these is that revision deletion here is advisable, but – under normal circumstances – not strictly necessary, and that it should be avoided if it's going to get in the way of attribution for the content added by the intervening edits. However, after a recent case it became apparent that revdel is – at least by some – used more extensively. It was also pointed out that revision deletion doesn't hide the names of the editors, so strictly speaking it doesn't get in the way of attribution for licensing purposes.

Now, if this recent example is representative of current practices, and it is indeed the case that the wording of RD1 is not relevant anymore, then we'd really need to start thinking about changing the policy and the documentation. There was a proposal to this effect in 2017, but it met with opposition. The wording of RD1 was also discussed in 2014.

My own view is that the current wording is appropriate. Attribution need not be understood in the narrowest terms. After revdel, it's no longer possible to see who wrote what for the text that's been added in the meantime. Such concealment of the provenance of article text can lead to a number of practical difficulties: e.g. in cleaning up after editors later found to have been disruptive, or when tracing the history of an article, or for figuring out why something in the article is the way it is (revdelling removes the link between the edit summaries and the changes made). It can also impede actual attribution for licensing purposes: yes, you can still generate a brute list of everyone who's edited the page, but you can no longer have just the actual list of contributors (if you reuse content after revdel, you'll have to credit everyone from the revdelled part of the history, including vandals and otherwise disruptive users). – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A continuation of this discussion was archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Attribution" in RD1

Attribution does not require blame

I created WP:Attribution does not require blame as an essay. The licensing details are not in dispute here, but they have been raised regularly in similar discussions.

Blame is a user's precise contribution, the individual diff in the page history.

1. The Wikimedia Foundation's wmf:Terms of Use § 7. Licensing of Content b.iii, specifies a list of authors as a valid attribution method.
2. A list of authors does not include page content and cannot provide blame.
3. Therefore, the licensing requirements do not include blame.

Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This was confirmed by WMF Legal around the same time: Special:Diff/1068782406. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Uanfala edited the essay to be more favorable to their interpretation, and I reverted. Special:PermanentLink/1078110743 is the version before their change. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of "attribution" in RD1

• As RD1 is the copyright criterion, its "attribution" should be interpreted consistent with copyright policy pages, including wmf:Terms of Use § 7. Licensing of Content, WP:Copyrights § Re-use of text (policy), and WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline). They use it in the context of the licensing requirements.
• A recurring opinion is something along the lines of "Licensing attribution is self-evident, so the mention must mean something more." When WT:Revision deletion/Archive 1#Community consultation was being considered in September–October 2009, the attribution requirement was not widely understood among editors. WP:Copying within Wikipedia would be promoted to guideline around a month later (WT:Copying within Wikipedia/Archive 1#Guideline proposal). WT:Revision deletion/Archive 1#Some questions (also October 2009) and WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording (2014) clarify that licensing is the sole concern.
• Copyright cleanup practice considered a list of authors as sufficient when WP:Selective deletion was used, prior to revision deletion. If RD1 were intended to restrict deletions and keep more revisions visible, there has been no change to reflect that.

Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have always understood that bit to be referring to the attribution required for licensing purposes, which is just the name of the editor. I think we should really get rid of that phrase. The only way revdel could pose a problem for licensing purposes is if someone hid the username for an edit which wasn't reverted, and it's very unlikely that RD1 would be used to hide a username. And if there really is a licensing problem with using revdel then it would apply to all the criteria and not just RD1. Hut 8.5 17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you to Flatscan for his clear and thorough statement of the position. I endorse his view entirely.—S Marshall T/C 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I linked this discussion from WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh. I had mentioned my intent there before creating these sub-sections. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Noting that I was explicitly told that WMF Legal's perspective is that attribution in form of a list of names in the pages history is suitable. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Like Hut 8.5, I've always found that sentence (If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used.) to be strange and confusing in the context of RD1, and never really applicable to the way the redactions are performed. DanCherek (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Highly theoretical idea for creating a case in which redacting a revision would actually remove contributors' attribution: Revision 1 is fine, revision 2 contains a copyvio, revision 3 adds desirable text copied from a compatibly licensed source together with in-text attribution, revision 4 removes the in-text-attribution and the copyvio ("cleanup"). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's clear by now that the word "attribution" should be dropped: it's ambiguous in this context and evidently a source of confusion and disagreement. However, the underlying principle – don't use revdel for small-scale infractions if that's going to disrupt the page history – should still be clearly stated, possibly in a way that applies to all RD criteria. There's already some exposition in the sections Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Misuse and Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use, but that does appear to at least partly presuppose the context of revdel use on discussion pages. There's still good reason why this will need to be explicitly mentioned within the text for RD1: the principle is far more relevant there than for other criteria. Copyvios on average take longer to detect than say, gross incivility or offensive material, and so there's a higher chance of intervening edits accruing in the meantime; also, the need to preserve visible page histories is much stronger for articles (where copyvios tend to occur) than for other pages (where other revdel criteria are more likely to be used). – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I split this from your section to focus on the "attribution" wording. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  What is your definition of "attribution"? Is it individual diffs (blame)? Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I plan to create a RfC to propose removing the clause and sentence that mention "attribution". Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  And replace it with what? – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  No replacement, just removal. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Historical RD1 samples

I took a few samples of revision deletions from last month, 5 years ago, and 10 years ago. I chose 10 revisions as a cutoff to approximate deletions that were likely to include non-infringing contributors. My findings are consistent with my interpretation of policy and understanding of practice above. To state it differently: assuming my samples are representative, the restrictive interpretation has been violated almost every day for over 10 years.

Revision deletion samples, limit=500

Starting	Through	Ctrl-F rd1	Notes
2012-01-01	2012-01-20 12:26	88	RD1 with >=10 revisions most days
2017-01-01	2017-01-03 14:58	59	RD1 with >=10 revisions each day; +many "Orphaned non-free file(s) deleted per F5"
2022-01-01	2022-01-04 02:03	82	RD1 with >=10 revisions each day, except 2022-01-04 which had only 2 hours

I started with 2012-01-01 because it is just over 10 years ago. Revision deletion was enabled for admins in May 2010. I suspect that there was some lag for procedures to develop and administrators to onboard. For example, {{Copyvio-revdel}} was moved to Template space in November 2010. Flatscan (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1

Should the clause and sentence that mention "attribution" be removed from the RD1 criterion? Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

Blatant violations of the copyright policy that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

Option 2A – 2 proposed by MLauba and added by Flatscan at 05:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC); 2A revised by Flatscan at 05:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Blatant violations of the copyright policy that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion. Username must not be hidden under RD1.

Rationale (RD1)

This change is a simplification that will have no material impact on policy or practice. The text being considered is:

• Overly complicated In practice, it boils down to "Deselect the Delete editor's username or IP option so the username remains visible." When RD1 was drafted in September–October 2009, revision deletion and the attribution requirement were not widely understood. Since then, administrators have gained years of hands-on experience with revision deletion, and WP:Copying within Wikipedia was promoted to a guideline and continues to be cited often.
• Redundant The Notes on use and Changing visibility settings sections advise against hiding usernames and mention the license/copyright considerations. Admins are aware that usernames should not be hidden unless specifically needed. Note that the requirements apply to all revision deletion, not only RD1.
• Misinterpreted Readers are invited to speculate, "It must mean something more, otherwise why is it there?"
  1. "Wikipedia's licensing requires that individual diffs must be visible." This interpretation was debunked by WMF Legal a few weeks ago. Also see #Attribution does not require blame above. #RfC on Change RD1-wording, a similar proposal from 2017, was opposed on this basis.
  2. "'Attribution' means something other than licensing attribution." As RD1 is the copyright criterion, its "attribution" should be interpreted consistent with the copyright policy pages, which all use it in the context of the licensing requirements. Also see #Meaning of "attribution" in RD1 above.

Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Poll (RD1)

• Support removal per Flatscan's rationale and my comment in the section above. That part has always seemed out-of-place and confusing to me because the redaction of copyright violations only involves hiding the revision content itself, not the contributor's username. DanCherek (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Addendum: I support option 1 only and oppose option 2 per my comment below: Edit summaries are occasionally hidden under RD1. This occurs most commonly if someone creates (or replaces) a page with copyvio and they don't use an edit summary, so the edit summary defaults to "←Created page with 'blah blah copyvio...". That kind of revision deletion doesn't happen too often, but it shouldn't be prohibited. This is a recent example of a valid copyright-related redaction of an edit summary. I don't believe it would be an improvement to label the redaction of copyvio in an edit summary as a policy violation. DanCherek (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Now that it has been revised, I support either option 1 or 2A. DanCherek (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal this clause is pointless and misleading. All that is required for attribution purposes is the list of users who contributed to the page (not the content of the edits), and it's extremely unlikely that RD1 would be used to hide a username. Having this clause in RD1 and RD1 only implies that RD1 is somehow special in this regard, which isn't true - any licensing issues would apply equally to all the criteria. There are other sections of the policy which advise on things like large scale use. Hut 8.5 08:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think option 2 is a good idea because edit summaries sometimes contain copyvio, but it's better than the current state. Hut 8.5 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also support 2A. Hut 8.5 10:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal. We have both editor consensus and confirmation from WMF Legal that revisions can in all cases " ... be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors" and that redacting a revision does not " ... remove any contributor's attribution ...", so that sentence-and-a-half is both outdated and actively misleading. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments in the preceding discussion. Attribution is necessary not just for compliance with the particular version of the Creative Commons licence we're using, it's essential for any meaningful work here (that's the whole point of having page histories!). But even if "attribution" is understood in the narrow sense, then revision deletions, when there are intervening edits, can make proper attribution impossible. If you reuse content and opt to provide a list of contributors, then you're no longer able to do that because you don't know who those contributors are any more: you're forced to give credit to all users who have made edits in the deleted section of the history, even for edits that have been reverted as vandalism. However, I would support a thoughtful rewrite of that bit of the policy, but simply removing its only provision against misuse – that should be a clear no-no. – Uanfala (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's hardly the "only provision against misuse". #Large-scale use remains policy regardless of this RfC's outcome. DanCherek (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Both #Large-scale use and #Misuse are relevant, but they're written in a way that addresses the context of use of the other RD criteria, so a reasonable person may conclude they don't apply to RD1. I don't believe these sections would have been written the way they were if RD1 didn't have this major limitation built in. If we're going to remove mention of this limitation then we're also going to have to rewrite those sections. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - removal. Support a rewrite that properly states the probable original intent: "if redaction removes any non-infringing contributions RD1 may not be used" It's an appropriate segue to mentioning WP:Copyright problems as the superseding text.--John Cline (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  If I find egregious copyvio in a single revision and remove it, I often take some time to manually tidy the article in the same edit (e.g., fixing malformed citations or curly quotes, removing excess whitespace). With your suggested change, I wouldn't even be able to request revision deletion of that one infringing revision because it would hide my own minor fixes. That seems far more extreme than what anyone else has advocated on this page or in the linked discussions. DanCherek (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Considering the original language for RD1: "Blatant copyright violations. This does not include revisions on the same page that contain non-violating content that were posted in good faith by users not associated with the copyright violator." was certainly " advocated on this page".[9] And when it was changed, it was changed to the current language [10] per this RfC, now a linked discussion itself (and quite relevant, since the current language came directly out of it). Together, these show that my position isn't extreme at all. And better than advocacy on this page, or a relevant linked discussion, I'm going to ask MRG to comment here and believe that she will. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Please provide specific quotes/diffs that support your position. The foundation of your argument is unclear.

  • The current wording was originally proposed by User:MLauba. Note this clarification: A null edit crediting the contributors after the redaction would however be acceptable, wherever practical. This method is covered by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors, although it was not yet a guideline at the time. I don't see an issue in either of MRG's comments: Special:Diff/318470703, Special:Diff/318846041. I read them as concern that admins may hide usernames, which does remove attribution.
  • RD1 was discussed in 2014 by MLauba and MRG: WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording, which affirmed that a list of authors is sufficient.
    • MLauba: To meet the attribution requirements, "X, Y and Z wrote this article" is sufficient.
    • MRG: Attribution is fully satisfied by the list
  • Your stance does not conform with actual practice. I posted above in a new subsection, #Historical RD1 samples. Quoting myself: assuming my samples are representative, the restrictive interpretation has been violated almost every day for over 10 years. The first page (default 50 actions) of Special:Log/Moonriddengirl (permanent link) includes multiple many-revision RD1 deletions that contradict your position.
  • Your notification of MRG feels non-neutral, which approaches WP:Canvassing#Campaigning.

  If we continue, we should move this to a new subsection below #Discussion (RD1). Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  I had completely forgotten that the language that trips up people these days was my own in the first place. Re-reading the old debates again, I can confirm that back in the day the verbiage "that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used" came from a lack of understanding of the RevDel interface. The policy was written before the tool was finalized and the concerns we (MRG, myself and the then-active WP:CP admins) had were mooted once the interface went live in its final version. To be clear, I support the simplified language proposed here. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Your rebuttal is compelling Flatscan. I think your comments about my message to MRG, however, are a bit off the mark; discussing it further would be off topic here so let's not. Regarding the foundation of my argument being unclear, I stated that the "probable original intent" (where attribution is now used) would be "non-infringing contributions" Linking to the "original language" clearly shows that the "original intent" was in fact "non-infringing contributions" then called: "non-violating content". Without debating the rightness or wrongness of that position, I did, and do think it was stated with sufficient clarity. And while the proposal may well carry the day, it will do so with me in dissent: I remain opposed. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I have been focused on the longstanding text. I will point out for other readers that the original wording was replaced (you provided the diff above) shortly before promotion to policy – months before revision deletion was enabled for admins – and never restored. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal, option 2A. The confusing language appears to have been my own, written before the RevDel interface was available and we all saw how easy it was to separate redacting the revision text without touching the edit summary nor the editor name. If we wanted to be more prescriptive, we could add something like Only the redaction of revision text is permissible under this criterion before pointing to the WP:CP guidance. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal. This clause was for a time when we had less understanding and judgement of how attribution works. We currently accept a list of contributors without necessarily seeing the diffs; admins accept revdels like the ones that are done at CCI and CP on a regular, where they can affect over half of the history. There is no attribution issue in the eyes of the people that regularly work to fix such issues with how RD1 is completed. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The assumption on your part is incorrect in the case of revision deletes. CC-BY-SA 3.0 states under section 4(c) The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors (emphasis my own). Each subsequent change in revision history falls squarely in the license's definition of "Adaptation". If a user contributes a great deal to a page, but in the same edit modifies a single line of a section that happens to contain a copyvio, it would be a violation of the license keep the contribution, but hide the facts of who added said content. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Your independent reading of the CC-BY-SA license invents a problem not recognized by wmf:Terms of Use § 7. Licensing of Content, WP:Copyrights § Re-use of text (policy), or WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline), nor by the perspective shared by WMF Legal a few weeks ago. WP:CWW has quoted that portion of the license since it was a draft in 2009. Revision deletion (usernames visible in the same place in the page history) affects credit less than the superseded WP:Selective deletion (list of authors in an edit summary or as a separate page) and copying between pages (list of authors or an additional hop to the source page's history). In case you mean credit for the deleted revisions specifically, my quick take is that they are hidden and not being "Distribute[d]". Regarding "hide the facts of who added said content", do you mean username (rarely hidden), the individual diff ("blame", not required by the license), or something else? Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning, the system message behind the text shown next to the "Publish" button when editing a page, says "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Interestingly, the Reply Tool's message (MediaWiki:Wikimedia-discussiontools-replywidget-terms-click) lacks this part. I have now asked WMF Legal whether adding it there as well would be beneficial. Anyway, as linked to by Flatscan above, the TOU say this as well (§7.b.i). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose If attribution is not preserved, then there is no point to the wiki in the first place, since we need attribution in order to make sure we don't violate the CC license. Also, attribution is important so we can reference changes to a page later, which is often helpful in resolving disputes. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B59F:66D4:2C8D:EA30 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Attribution is preserved. This is clear in the proposal, and the newly-added Option 2 2A is even more precise. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC) – updated 2 to 2A Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I added a new Option 2 and relabeled the original proposal as Option 1. I believe that they are close enough to count previous supports toward Option 2 also. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC) – struck, being discussed below. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal, Option 1 or 2A, as proposer. I prefer 1 because I think the added sentence is unnecessary, but 2A is acceptable. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC) – updated 2 to 2A Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Option 2. I would've supported Option 1, but Option 2 is clearly the better of the two options (and both better than the current text). Option 2 makes it extremely clear what is and is not allowed to be revdel'd under RD1. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Would you confirm if you support the revised Option 2A? Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Flatscan: I preferred the old text, but I'm still fine with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I revised Option 2 to 2A. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal Option 2A is also fine. It is clear that RD1 as used regularly is not removing copyright attribution as the username would not fall under RD1. That makes this sentence unnecessary and likely confusing. I prefer straight removal over option 2 since that too feels unnecessary since I can't see an admin comfortable to work with revision deletion removing the name of a user under RD1. --Trialpears (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 2A. Although all the proposed texts are a clarification and an improvement, 2A is the very best. It accurately reflects the advice we've received from the Foundation, it fully complies with the terms of use, and it reduces the workload on sysops to clean up copyright violations.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• I Support the revised option 2A. — Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support either option 1 or option 2A. I've been confused by this passage before and never seen a situation in which it has changed the course of an action taken based on a genuine issue. Attribution does not require blame, indeed. Many of the oppose reasons are simply incorrect. We should be much clearer that copyvios can be revdelled on sight. — Bilorv (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I'm not entirely convinced that the removal of this extra language would be a net positive here. If someone could assuage my doubts that attribution requirements cannot be violated as a result of this modification of CFRD1, then I would change my mind. As it stands, my understanding of the revdel tool is limited by not having access to the tool itself. Bearing that in mind, I understand it to be the case that revision deletions taking place over a long series of edits or for particularly old edits carry the risk of "collateral damage" so to speak, i.e. removal of attribution for content placed during intermediary edits. If an author's only contribution(s) fall into the range of this deletion, then wouldn't the attribution be destroyed? They would not appear in a potential list of authors compiled from the page history. Iff that's the case, then please interpret this as an oppose !vote. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi AlexEng! I hope an example can clear some things up. If you look at this history of this draft, there is a little bit of "collateral damage" in terms of ability to see who wrote what – you can't see what IP 193.135.216.61 changed, and you can't technically see what Ingenuity changed (though the edit summary makes that obvious). However, the revision deletion did not remove attribution for any contributor, because the usernames have not been hidden, just the revision contents, and a list of contributors' usernames is sufficient, as explained above. While there are reasons not to use revision deletion on an excessive number of revisions, the rationale for my !vote is that these reasons are not actually related to the sentence under discussion. DanCherek (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, DanCherek. Isn't there also an option to delete a revision along with the author information? Or does the tool retain authorship in all cases? AlexEng^(TALK) 23:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, administrators can choose to hide usernames too. This is typically done under the RD2 criterion when someone signs up with a vile and flagrantly offensive username. Because hiding the username does indeed remove attribution, Option 2A was proposed above to explicitly disallow doing that under RD1, to address some editors' concerns. DanCherek (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (RD1)

• Notifications: {{rfc|policy}} (diff), WP:Village pump (policy) (diff), WT:Copyright problems (diff), and WT:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup (diff). I did not list at WP:Centralized discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The RfC expired on 19 March 2022 (diff 1, diff 2) Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• WP:Centralized discussion (diff) --John Cline (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Archived on 11 March 2022 by Barkeep49 (diff 1, diff 2) Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Mentioned in WP:Administrators' newsletter/2022/3 (diff) Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• The problem I have always had with If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used is that it is not clear to me when "redacting a revision...removes any contributor's attribution". Removing the username does, yes, but most RD1 deletions are of revision text and I am never certain when doing so would remove any contributor's attribution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  If this is a request for clarification, the short answer is practically never, as attribution in the page text is not a recommended method. Also see previous comments by DanCherek and ToBeFree and background from MLauba. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 (RD1)

• Given some of the misgivings in the poll above, we could also consider rewording the criterion to become extremely specific, eg:

  Blatant violations of the copyright policy Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion. Only revision text may be hidden under RD1.

  This would eliminate all concerns about RD1 being used to tamper with attribution data (or edit summaries, for that matter). MLauba ^(Talk) 09:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for proposing this again, it's a great idea. I added it as a new Option 2. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Edit summaries are occasionally hidden under RD1. This occurs most commonly if someone creates (or replaces) a page with copyvio and they don't use an edit summary, so the edit summary defaults to "←Created page with 'blah blah copyvio...". That kind of revision deletion doesn't happen too often, but it shouldn't be prohibited. DanCherek (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Good catch! It had crossed my mind, but I hoped it wouldn't be an issue. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I should have reverted for more discussion as soon as I saw this objection. Forbidding existing practice was not my intention. I tried to address it by revising Option 2 to 2A. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think this is an improvement: copyvios can occur outside of revision text, and restricting RD1 to revision text will only look like a good idea if there are intervening edits with substantive contributions, but if they are such intervening edits, then revdel ideally won't be used in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the only way to clarify revision deletion that might allay the valid concerns of others would require the addition of a new criterion for "complex copyright violations" (perhaps RD1.1) which should only be used when the copyright owner has filed a complaint or the infringement has been repeatedly reinstated from the page's editing history. This is because RD1 is for "blatant copyright violations" which is considerably different, and they each require different methods of handling, particularly when free-content edits overlie the infringement which definitely precludes the use of RD1 (consider CSD-G12 for an example of how the two are handled). The original RD1 language was likely an effort to prevent commingling the two types of infringement under one criterion but half-steps (short of creating a separate criterion) have failed and the current proposal will only make matters worse.--John Cline (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  An RD1.1 as described is hardly necessary. OTRS or Office actions have all the tools necessary to handle content holder complaints, and in fact are the only venues for content holders to address their complaints in the first place - if someone pops up on a talk page and claims that he owns inserted content, they will be directed to OTRS to clear it up. As for addressing repeat reinsertion, admins still have the rest of their toolset at their disposal, protection and if needed blocking. As to your speculations about the original RD1 language, well I wrote it, and Flatscan has kindly linked to the discussions around that further up here, and there's no need to speculate (spoiler alert, no, the original language was to avoid losing attribution, at a time we didn't know for sure how RD worked). MLauba ^(Talk) 10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply MLauba. To clarify: if RD1 is for Blatant violations of the copyright policy, and: it is subordinate to the "best practices" outlined at Wp:Copyright problems where blatant copyright violations are described, and speedy deletion is prescribed when such "blatant infringement" is found to exist, under what circumstances would one be justified in disregarding the prescribed CSD-G12 deletion to perform RD1 revision deletion instead? I submit that no justifiable circumstances exist and, therefore, RD1 could never actually be used as written. While I am not proposing this now, because I do not wish to burden the RfC in progress with options developed after its start, I do suggest that the simplest way to resolve this paradox, in my opinion, would be to rename RD1: Gross violations of copyright policy. I further believe that it should delineate therein: two specifically narrow provisions where revision deletion could be used: 1.) Uncomplicated violations, and 2.) Complicated violations — which would potentially render as:

  Gross violations of copyright policy
  This criterion may be used for:
  * Uncomplicated violations where removal of the infringing content by revision deletion does not affect the free content that would otherwise exist had the violation never occurred.
  * Complicated violations after an investigation has been conducted, the article has been cleaned, and revision deletion has been subsequently requested.
  Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

  This is consistent with RD1's original language,[11] which is not the text written by you[12] and published without proper attribution[13] so the spoiler doesn't quite apply. For the record, I suppose it would be good if FT2 commented regarding the intent of RD1's original language. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  For the sake of clarity, the nuance between G12 and RD1 is that G12 is a blunt tool used to delete an article wholesale (usually close to its creation) whereas RD1 is a fine tool meant to excise copyvios introduced later down the road, and, in general, where reverting to the last known good version would lose valid contributions outside of the copyvio content. It's a way to deal with the "fruit of a poisoned tree" problem that doesn't penalize the other contributors. As an aside, not sure where you are going with the "published without proper attribution", but I would have been grossly overreaching in directly implementing verbiage I proposed myself after the conclusion of a community discussion I was part of. I'll gladly own up to the fact that the current version is badly written and confusing, but I don't see how its adoption would have been improper. Happy to submit this under review should you feel otherwise, though. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm good; thanks for your reply. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I revised Option 2 to 2A. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing (RD1)

@Uanfala and John Cline: Will you accept me closing this discussion, or do you insist that I file at WP:Closure requests? Removal is supported by a significant majority. (The other opposers contributed only a few times and have low activity.) Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor should close it. DanCherek (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me this, I appreciate the consideration and answer in two parts. First, I neither object to your closing the discussion nor will I challenge the outcome on that basis. I do, nevertheless, reserve the right to challenge the closure on merits that otherwise might come to be or to participate in a challenge that another might file. The second part is simply to say that while I do not object, I also, in this case, do not advise. In my opinion, the outcome is too important, the controversy: too unsettled, and the potential negativity: too costly for you to volunteer in this role. Time isn't short and nothing urgent is needful of haste. Ultimately, the decision is yours and no ill, either way, will come out of me. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest filing this for 3rd party closure. Let's not give rise to another round of discussion now or in the future due to procedural grounds. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)S

Okay, I will list there with a link to #RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1 with no message beyond {{Initiated}} and my ~~~~ signature. Are there any other suggestions? Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Listed as WP:Closure requests#Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1 (diff) Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

RevDel criteria far too broad

I feel a need to complain that I think the RevDel policy allows too many uses. I think its use should be restricted ONLY to edits that pose a clear and present threat that the Wikimedia Foundation could be subject to major legal action if an edit were merely reverted. The only thing I can think of that fits this criterion would be information that a government would likely claim was releasing government secrets inappropriately.

Kris Kobach said that the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union were communist organizations. If someone had claimed that some other individual (not an organization) were a mass murderer or a pedophile, possibly using more explicit language, I don't think it would still justify deletion without a trace. It reminds me of Nikita Khrushchev's comment when he was ousted as Soviet Premier that under Stalin, "Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing." We should allow the wet spot to remain, unless doing so could threaten the viability of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm writing now because an hour ago I got a notice that the article on "Nazism" was changed by User:Black Kite saying, "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". User:Black Kite does NOT even appear in Nazism: Revision history. No mere mortal is allowed to review that evaluation. That seems to me to be a blatant violation of the general open nature of Wikipedia. I don't think it should be allowed for material that is "insulting, degrading, or offensive", even if grossly so, because it's not subject to public review. See also my comments on Talk:Nazism#Reverting revisions without allowing others to see what was reverted. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What about where a person puts something in when it is so outrageous / nonsense that they certainly know it will be deleted, they put it in only because they want it to be in the edit summary and history? North8000 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: it's a waste of time even discussing this. It's calling not for a change in RevDel but in WP:OVERSIGHT as it is much more restrictive than the criteria there. Even copyright violations don't get suppressed. And of course it would allow 10 year old children to post their age and possibly become prey. This won't get traction. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The revdel criterion exists in response to extensive abuse over the year by attention-seeking trolls and long-term abusers of the most virulent kind who try to permanently enshrine gross abuse in Wikipedia revisions, that has no value to the encyclopedia, and which simply aggrandizes the abuser. It is used on a daily basis to deny recognition to to abuse, and has been completely uncontroversial. I have commonly used it to delete threats, personal abuse and harassment aimed at other Wikipedia editors by WMF-banned users. It can be reviewed by other administrators for appropriateness. The WMF has made it clear that they will not agree to non-administrators having the ability to view deleted content. As for suppression/oversight, that is reserved for certain very narrowly-defined edits, usually involving personal information, that is restricted even from view by administrators. And that is in turn subject to review by arbitrators and other oversighters. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And without question, unsourced or poorly sourced accusations of criminal activity are subject to revision deletion under the BLP policy - it's compulsory. That's not open to any kind of debate. I strongly advise you to read WP:BLP for the reasons why. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I asked, because I got a notice of a change to Nazism, but the change was hidden so the only thing one could see without admin privileges was that an edit had been reverted. I could not even see who had decided to hide the reversion. (WP:BLP does not apply in this case.)

I complained on the Talk page and was told this is standard Wikipedia policy for "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" and that the text reverted was "Heil hitler" repeated a dozen times.

That change seems to me to be offensive, stupid, silly. However, I saw no evidence in that article of "extensive abuse over the year by attention-seeking trolls and long-term abusers ... who try to permanently enshrine gross abuse in Wikipedia revisions".

Was the editor in that case making other more grossly offensive edits in other articles, which I couldn't see? And doing so in ways that could not be controlled by blocking certain IP addresses, e.g., as discussed in Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: you aren't responding to the points raised by us so I assume you no longer want to see RevDel revised the way you suggested. And yes, we can block after the fact, which still means the edits need to be dealt with. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of intervening edits

Between the addition and the removal of an offending material there may come many intervening edits, and if revision deletion is used, then they will get deleted as well.

How much collateral damage is it acceptable to have in the way of intervening edits? There are obviously several factors at play, and the choice of whether to delete or not has commonly been described as a balancing act. The existing guidelines and guides imply that proportionately little such damage is tolerated (WP:CPAA: so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently; WP:RD: RevisionDelete is mainly intended for simple use and fairly recent material...). However, from the recent discussions (see #RD1, attribution and intervening edits, the links there and the follow-ups) it appears that it has now become commonplace for the removal of small-scale copyvios to lead to the deletion of large chunks of article history.

At this subpage there are brief statistics on the number of revisions deleted in the 1,000 most recent instances of WP:RD1 use spanning the last 23 days. The median number is 2, so most deletions likely don't affect intervening edits. However, there are still over 200 instances where 10 or more revisions were deleted, 20 cases with more than 50, and 7 deletions that each removed more than 100 revisions.

A large number of deleted revisions doesn't always equate to a large number of deleted intervening edits (for example, the contributor of the offending text may then fiddle with it using many edits in quick succession). Still, as evident from the list, there are articles where the deletion has affected almost the entire history, sometimes going back a decade.

Is this really OK? Why is it so common? Where exactly do we draw the line? – Uanfala (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to #RD1, attribution and intervening edits, maybe as a new subsection. I see this as a continuation of that discussion, and readers would not have to jump around. Thank you for keeping it separate from #"Attribution" in RD1 and the RfC. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I infer a recent development from it has now become commonplace. I sampled 500 revision deletions starting 2012-01-01 (Ctrl-F rd1: 88), 2017-01-01 (59), and 2022-01-01 (82). Aside from many "Orphaned non-free file(s) deleted per F5" appearing between 2012 and 2017 and compressing the date range, they look similar with varied revision counts. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail, but your 2012 sample does indeed show usage comparable to today's. I only assumed the present state would be the result of a process of change because I imagined that when the guidelines were written they would have been representative of common practice at the time. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Revdel messing with page preview

Hi! Recently the page Sayani Gupta had been vandalized and revdel. Afterwards, the page preview read out the revdel'd content (a repeated death threat), which was fixed after ScottishFinnishRadish made a minor edit to the article which updated the page preview. How should this issue be reported to mediawiki, especially since I can't (nor wish) to link the revdel'd versions that caused the bug. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Or, at least, has anyone seen a similar bug after revdel was used? Not sure what caused the issue. I assume it was something caching related, and if I didn't see a quick copyedit to make I would have tried a dummy edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Vulnerable talkpage

I am becoming increasing uncomfortable with Talk:List of country calling codes. I have no idea why, but it attracts a continuous stream of IPs who think it is a place to get help with Facebook and similar. People regularly post emails and whatsapp numbers there. These are clearly not very tech literate people, and the concentration of such people and their information in one location seems exploitable. I have come to feel that there is a good case to simply revdel the entire talkpage history per 4.Oversightable information, or simply per IAR given the situation. Further, while drastic, I think it be justified to indefinitely semi the talkpage, as the relevant talkpage activity is far far outweighed by the stream of emails and phone numbers. I would be interested in the thoughts of others. Best, CMD (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)