Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion/Noticeboard

Active discussions

Opening discussionEdit

This board seems like a good idea, but it only establishes a larger and difficult-to-navigate bureaucracy, something that Wikipedia is not. Basket of Puppies 06:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I must agree here, it adds further and unnecessary bureaucracy. Also, there doesn't really seem like enough RevDel requests occuring on ANI to warrant the creation of this noticeboard. --Stickee (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Noting again that I think this noticeboard is a bad idea.[1] And a link to previous discussion on AN. -Atmoz (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Noting and copying over other posts at WP:AN (so the thread there isn't lost):

It seems like a good idea, but in the end it only serves to further the bureaucracy, something which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Basket of Puppies 06:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll create it, if you are asking because consensus has been reached? Ks0stm (TCG) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, boldly created with a "proposed noticeboard" message at the top. Now we can discuss it's merits or not on it's talk page, etc, essentially as we would a proposed policy. Ks0stm (TCG) 06:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I said I was going to do this, but I haven't ever gotten around to it--I got caught up in rescuing an interesting article and never got back to it. I endorse the idea of someone going ahead and doing this. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

FT2 (Talk | email) 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I will say that the longer libel or defamation remains, the greater the chance for liability or harm. That being said, it only makes sense if a lot of administrators watchlist and therefore there should be a liberal number of administrators who agree with the creation of this board.    Thorncrag  07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This was addressed at the past AN discussion. This board does not cover libel and defamation. It handles routine deletion (because a history revision can't be templated as a page can for WP:CSD). The header specifically states
"Do not post requests or links related to privacy breaches, "outing", or clear defamation here."
It adds in bold that such requests must be reported at requests for oversight instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
As I have always seen, people will see the revision delete part, and won't care at all if this is not an OS board. That means we get diffs here, possibly with personal information, and now Wikimedia is liable. It's like ANI, we always get AIV stuff even though it says to go to AIV. We're just asking for trouble on this noticeboard. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
WHile anything's possible, it's at worst unproven and capable of being tested for a trial period. "Suppression" was partly chosen as the term, so that it was distinct from "delete" or "revision delete" and naive users would understand the two as distinct functions. I think the presence of a huge central text saying "post stuff of THIS kind over THERE. Do not post it here" will help a lot. One key reason ANI gets vandalism reports is that the ANI header all but tells people to do so. (It states "To report persistent vandalism..." which discourages AIV by saying that anything that isn't clearly "persistent" doesn't belong there.) Oversighters watching the category early on would not hurt. And no, Wikimedia doesn't become "liable". FT2 (Talk | email) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Full AN threadEdit

A month ago there was discussion of a noticeboard for RevisionDelete requests, rather than handling them at ANI.

This would cover matters that do not require oversight and are neither privacy breaching nor defamatory under Oversight policy. Typical examples include specific copyvio and browser-crashing/disruptive revisions, CSD for specific revisions rather than entire page history, routine housekeeping, etc. (policy)

Recap of summary:

Sufficient consensus?

I think we have gotten sufficient consensus to create the noticeboard, so someone should go ahead and do it! Meanwhile, I'll be designing a header and editnotice in my userspace. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's sufficient consensus for a draft to be helpful at this point; it may help overcome some reservations. Rd232 talk 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a little bit "cart before the horse", but those who oppose the board in principle seem to underestimate the range of design options available. Besides what I've already said above, you could design the board so that all that's seen publicly is a log of requests (with no useful information in the log, not even a link, least not whilst it's any use to non-admins). For example the log could be structured as "request number # sent by email to Admin Y at time such and such", and after deletion the admin responds on the board with a link so other admins can review. Or, if we didn't even want that level of publicness (though that's hardly more than the existing log), we could devise some system involving requests going by email to several admins, so that the decision is reviewed entirely offline, and the log merely shows requests and the timeliness of fulfilment. Rd232 talk 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for something sufficiently clever to avoid BEANS issues, that actually gets coded, actually works, and actually diverts traffic away from ANI. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I imagined that my idea you're replying to wouldn't require coding, just instructions to people on what to do, and a template or two. Rd232 talk 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Revisiting this, there's still a clear numerical majority favoring a new noticeboard, but at the same time there are also a number of pretty senior people saying it's a bad idea. I'm simply not seeing why it's a bad idea, given that we're already getting multiple requests at ANI, that the content in question will only last on-wiki as long as it takes an admin to RevDel it, and that it doesn't change Oversight at all. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • We need more input I think. Myself, a notice board that merely tracks that requests were made is preferable to one that gives links to the items in need of attention, and my opposition to it is softer. But a notice board to track this would be, in my view, fairly complex in operation so I'm not seeing the benefit. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The draft header and template can be seen and were designed to clarify the main concern (related to oversightable material).

Should someone go ahead and create Wikipedia:Revision deletion/Noticeboard? FT2 (Talk | email) 05:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, but in the end it only serves to further the bureaucracy, something which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Basket of Puppies 06:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll create it, if you are asking because consensus has been reached? Ks0stm (TCG) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, boldly created with a "proposed noticeboard" message at the top. Now we can discuss it's merits or not on it's talk page, etc, essentially as we would a proposed policy. Ks0stm (TCG) 06:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I said I was going to do this, but I haven't ever gotten around to it--I got caught up in rescuing an interesting article and never got back to it. I endorse the idea of someone going ahead and doing this. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Noting: discussion is likely to be at the talk page, to avoid splitting between venues. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's proof why posting at ANI is a bad idea and we need the new noticeboard. Recently an editor who I won't name here for privacy reasons posted a legitimate suicide threat on his userpage, when it was posted to ANI 4chan caught whiff of it and after the user recovered from suicidal thoughts and was unblocked the trolls raided his page encouraging him to commit suicide saying 'no one likes you in life please go shoot your self' or something along those lines. Ani is just too visible. Access Deniedtalk to me 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I missed the discussion but really like this idea and I have watchlisted that noticeboard's page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The colorsEdit

Man is it ever bright! Bit of an eyesore. Good idea though. -- œ 14:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I toned them down now. Access Deniedtalk to me 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is it pink? Otherwise, seems OK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So when does this motherfucker go live?Edit

People have said things I don't agree with. I want those things supressed or revdeleted or otherwise expunged. How do I go about this? MtD (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Disagreeing isn't a deletion criterion and never has been.
  • Privacy breaches and clear defamation can be removed in cases where it's practical - see WP:Requests for oversight for criteria and how to request it.
  • Pages meeting speedy deletion criteria or revisions and log entries whose text, username or edit summary meet Revision Delete criteria can be requested to any administrator.
This board is a proposal for centralizing Revision Delete requests - it's not live as it is still under discussion and can't be used at this moment. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well whatever. Once this thing goes live I wager that I'll be able to get all manner of embarassing things rev deleted. It's all about making a sufficient fuss. There will be some newly minted Admin who will turn him/herself inside out who will oblige. :) MtD (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. But probably no more than any other deletion. The tool itself has been useable by admins for a long time, so you can easily try right now.
Most newly minted admins are going to notice the very big sign that misuse "in a manner not covered by the criteria... will usually be treated as abuse of the tool". New admins also tend to avoid risking their adminships through poor judgment when the policy says otherwise. The diffs also remain visible in page and contrib history and any admin can view and trivially restore them if there's ever a legitimate question. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it back. This board is a bad idea. -- œ 15:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No! It's a great idea. Imagine all the wrongs we can right and all the indiscreations we can cover up. The possibilities are endlesss. General Sanctions will have nothing on this. MtD (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is convincing. -- œ 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


If this noticeboard lives, I (personally) really don't like the gradient on the template you're using. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I toned It down now. A lot. Access Deniedtalk to me 19:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's why this board isn't a good ideaEdit

Last night I saw a major BLP violation on an article that I have watchlisted. I undid the vio and left a lvl 1 warning on the user's page. Within a few seconds he added it all back, so I reverted and left a lvl 2. Then he did again and I went into IRC to ask for help and advice about continuing to revert. Then came the suggestion to report it to BLP/N. However, since the BLP vio was using a blog as a source I was also told I should report it to RS/N and maybe I should consider to ANI because the person was to persistently readding libelous information. I made the report to BLP/N but then was concerned that reporting it to RS/N would be forum shopping and the ANI people would warn me about the same. As well, the libelous information probably needed to be revdel'd, so that would be four noticeboards I would have to make the report to. Is that ok? Which one should go first? Which has priority? It's tiring to make so many reports to so many noticeboards. Creating this new noticeboard is a clear violation of the WP:NOT bureaucracy policy and I can't put forth my strong Oppose enough. Basket of Puppies 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever said this is the only venue for asking for RevDel? I really only care that it takes RevDel requests off of ANI, not that it is the only venue for such requests. I see RevDel requests handled at BLPN all the time. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The more boards there are to watch, the less well they will be watched. I could spend at least 500% of my time here on noticeboards if I tried to watch them all (by which I mean not watch passively, but watch, consider many of the cases, and comment on some of them). As is, I spend about an hour a day at it, starting with AN and ANI, and it is a rare day that I get very far beyond that to RSN, the next on my list. Presumably some admins will specialize in watching this one, which will prevent their doing other necessary things. I'm not sure the limited list of things this applies to will be adhered to-- and I am fairly sure it will lead to many more rev dels than actually necessary. In general, the ones actually necessary are the ones that should not be stated in public. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the other reasons for a noticeboard is the big, bold warning which delineates things that should be sent to oversight vs. posted on a noticeboard. Seeing as how we've just decomissioned FICTN, this is actually not a net new noticeboard. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a net reduction in the amount of bureaucracy and confusion, IMO. Basket of Puppies 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
We actually need a lot of noticeobards, If we only had 1 there would be so much on it that most threads would be archived before they even got looked at. Access Deniedtalk to me 22:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I monitor ANI every day and it seems that the revdel requests are not saturating the board nor are they so frequent they need their own noticeboard. Having a noticeboard for every single issue is becoming a burden. Basket of Puppies 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The decommissioning of FICTN was a very good thing, and we should now see whether we can reduce the numbers further. It's a precedent for that, not for doing the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
FICTN was decommissioned due to inactivity. ----Divebomb is not British 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We actually will need this boardEdit

You say it won't get enough use... well, I have had to make no less than FOUR Revdel requests within the last 36 hours or so. And all were legit requests that were actually deleted if my brain serves me right. And I see a lot more in various places, espceially ANI. This board WILL get a lot of use, trust me. Access Deniedtalk to me 04:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And quite possibly a lot of AB-use. This board may turn out to be a net negative, or at least waste a lot of administrator's time checking bad faith agenda-driven requests or from people who don't understand its purpose. -- œ 07:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Unconvinced by that. Users who post a request here will have sought out this board as opposed to any other. It doesn't seem likely that they will raise new claims "just because it's here", any more than they do at AIV, 3RR, ANI etc. Most noticeboards get reasonable use even if requests are sometimes declined, and the declines that do happen were because a user had a concern and looked for where to post it. Not sure why this would be likely to differ. In the absence of this board they would have found wherever else seemed best instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Make it easier to submit a report?Edit

I think that including something like SPI has to make their reports more uniform would be a big help at this page. Nakon 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea. Plus it will be easier to track requests. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

More exposureEdit

I've added a link at the main Wikipedia:Requests page, so we should expect things to start getting a little more active. -- œ 05:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. It's had plenty of time, and it sat vacant. Marked as {{Failed}}. -- œ 16:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, just not practical in this form. Nakon 18:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This board seems like it would be a good ideaEdit

Currently, the WP:REVDEL page doesn't make it remotely clear where a request for Revision Deletion is supposed to be made. It links to this page, but it's inactive. I just found a revision that needed deletion, but wasn't sure where to request it, so ended up requesting oversight instead. Apparently it seems I should have taken it to ANI? I'm sure it would be a better idea to have a separate page for REVDEL requests - what was wrong with this one? Robofish (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You can try contacting any administrator listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Nakon 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Revision deletion/Noticeboard".