This is the
talk page for discussing
Revision deletion and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
For making RevisionDelete requests, please see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. This page is only for discussing the Wikipedia:Revision deletion policy page. |
I thought we revision-deleted email addresses given in edit summaries, particularly when it is from a throw-away IP such as Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:153D:447B:3DCD:6B3F:A44:C8C4. Before doing that I thought I would read the documentation to see what RD number I should use. Surely not RD4 Oversightable information? I'm not going to bother an oversighter for simple disruption like this? And if it were RD4, I can see the wise advice to not use RD4 but instead to just email oversight. If that is really intended, the documentation should say so. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
My view is that many Wikipedia editors are living people, and WP:BLPDEL protects us. For some, having bad blocks in their block log has caused measurable harm and distress. I don't know whether it's harmed EEng because I haven't asked him; but I'm morally sure that it's harmed others.Therefore I'm minded to propose that we change WP:REVDEL to permit Arbcom, checkusers, and oversighters to modify block logs at their discretion, and sysops to amend block logs if there's consensus to do that at a community block review. That kind of change would need a community RfC, but I thought it best to ask for your thoughts and advice here before I start one.— S Marshall T/ C 15:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries.
I couldn't find a description on this page of how a non-admin can request revision undeletion, short of contacting an admin directly. Some images with deleted versions don't actually meet RD1 -- usually because the image was tagged as non-free at some point, but is now free (e.g., copyright expired recently). Should we have a centralized process/tag for these? Wikiacc ( ¶) 21:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions), but these aren’t (imo) the type of redactions that should be able to be undone at WP:REFUND. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 06:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
to reverse uncontroversial revision-deletions made under RD5could be read as implicitly stating that all revdels made under RD5 are uncontroversial and can be REFUNDed. My worry is that this is beyond what is current practice, and would therefore (in effect) represent a change to the policy. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 07:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Point taken that my suggested wording is ambiguous in scope. How about this rewrite? @ A smart kitten:
Wikiacc ( ¶) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
For speedy deletions or deletions that resulted from discussions,to something like
If a discussion with the deleting admin fails to resolve the issue,: this takes out the term
speedy deletions(which, as far as I’m aware, isn’t generally used to describe revdels), and also makes clear that a discussion with the deleting admin would generally be expected before filing a DRV.
This is the
talk page for discussing
Revision deletion and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
For making RevisionDelete requests, please see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. This page is only for discussing the Wikipedia:Revision deletion policy page. |
I thought we revision-deleted email addresses given in edit summaries, particularly when it is from a throw-away IP such as Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:153D:447B:3DCD:6B3F:A44:C8C4. Before doing that I thought I would read the documentation to see what RD number I should use. Surely not RD4 Oversightable information? I'm not going to bother an oversighter for simple disruption like this? And if it were RD4, I can see the wise advice to not use RD4 but instead to just email oversight. If that is really intended, the documentation should say so. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
My view is that many Wikipedia editors are living people, and WP:BLPDEL protects us. For some, having bad blocks in their block log has caused measurable harm and distress. I don't know whether it's harmed EEng because I haven't asked him; but I'm morally sure that it's harmed others.Therefore I'm minded to propose that we change WP:REVDEL to permit Arbcom, checkusers, and oversighters to modify block logs at their discretion, and sysops to amend block logs if there's consensus to do that at a community block review. That kind of change would need a community RfC, but I thought it best to ask for your thoughts and advice here before I start one.— S Marshall T/ C 15:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries.
I couldn't find a description on this page of how a non-admin can request revision undeletion, short of contacting an admin directly. Some images with deleted versions don't actually meet RD1 -- usually because the image was tagged as non-free at some point, but is now free (e.g., copyright expired recently). Should we have a centralized process/tag for these? Wikiacc ( ¶) 21:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions), but these aren’t (imo) the type of redactions that should be able to be undone at WP:REFUND. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 06:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
to reverse uncontroversial revision-deletions made under RD5could be read as implicitly stating that all revdels made under RD5 are uncontroversial and can be REFUNDed. My worry is that this is beyond what is current practice, and would therefore (in effect) represent a change to the policy. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 07:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Point taken that my suggested wording is ambiguous in scope. How about this rewrite? @ A smart kitten:
Wikiacc ( ¶) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
For speedy deletions or deletions that resulted from discussions,to something like
If a discussion with the deleting admin fails to resolve the issue,: this takes out the term
speedy deletions(which, as far as I’m aware, isn’t generally used to describe revdels), and also makes clear that a discussion with the deleting admin would generally be expected before filing a DRV.