Knowledge (XXG) talk:Revision deletion/Archive 5

3047:

really concerned here for the feelings of LTAs, and more concerned for the possibility that some LTA gets their username deleted and sees an opportunity to escalate from regular trolling to copyright trolling. In the worst-case scenario, such a person could sue an editor who innocently restores their content, as that restoration would now violate the attribution requirement.I think the core of that is well-enough settled, which is why we have a general prohibition on redacting usernames but not edit content. My question is whether reverting an edit really suffices to mollify those attribution concerns. And my answer to my own question is that it doesn't. The way I see it, if you need to revdel a username, and the content of the edit is above the threshold of originality, you must both revert and revdel the content, or otherwise the result is a copyright violation. In a case where the content doesn't need to be reverted, well, we have to pick either hosting both content and username, or neither, but we don't get to pick and choose.

510:. 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, 1613:. 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.-- 197:

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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.

2640:

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.

820:, 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). – 2952:'s attribution requirement. CC BY-SA does not make a distinction between hosting the current version of a page and the old version of a page. We need to maintain attribution both for the current version of an article and for all previous versions. So merely reverting a substantive edit would not be enough to make it okay to RD the username but not the edit's content. The WMF would still be violating that user's copyright by hosting that old revision; and if someone chooses to restore that revision or incorporate it into some other page, they would be violating that user's copyright as well. 1368:

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. –

2744:. 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.-- 1749:(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". 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? 31: 1678:. 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. 1598:

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.

1707:(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. -- 2061:

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

1350:. 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. 134:. No mere mortal is allowed to review that evaluation. That seems to me to be a blatant violation of the general open nature of Knowledge (XXG). 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 2099:, 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 1475:, 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.-- 3046:

As far as CC BY-SA is concerned, they're entitled to attribution under the name they request. We, as a community, can of course say "We don't want to host your work if you're going to request attribution under some horrible name", but there's no "offensive pseudonym" exception to the license. I'm not

2563:

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

2481:

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

2410:

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

1979:

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

1438:

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

1252:

700:

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

378:

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

811:

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

92:

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

2639:

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

2522:

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

1367:

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

794:

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

2143:

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

2060:

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

2038:

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

1287:

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

488:

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. –

1597:

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

1403:

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

3024:

My sympathy is stretched thin by such pillocks. But if there is an occasion where someone wants to exercise their right to attribution and goes through the rename process to some name that meets our policies, I suspect that a null edit from their new account could resolve the issue. Don't we do

2998:

Self-requested username removals are covered as a separate exception. I'm talking about cases where an admin revdels someone's username (typically for being abusive), but not the content of a substantive edit they made. Which is rare—since accounts with abusive usernames usually make edits that

1660:. 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 906:

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

196:

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 Knowledge (XXG) revisions, that has no value to the encyclopedia, and which simply aggrandizes the

1701:

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

414:

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

1793:

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.

410:

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.

2507:

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

1997:. 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.— 2523:

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

1198:"'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 115:'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. 1230:

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.

272:

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 Knowledge (XXG)

3064:

I agree with Tamzin's analysis: the edit must be reverted and the text of all intervening revisions should be revision deleted to prevent restoration. The items in the sentence could be expanded to a bulleted list to accommodate the added length.

1173:

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

1766:, 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 ( 1035:. There's a consensus that the current language is confusing and not required. Both Option 1 and 2A had lots of support but since 2A also helps assuage concerns about attribution, that's the language I find the most consensus for. 2568:. 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: 2572:. 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: 219:

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

2527:

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).

181:

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.

354:

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.

276:

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

305:

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.

1896:

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.

153:

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?

2495:" (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 " 268:

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

701:

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.

340:

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.

1258:

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.

1288:

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.

1420:- 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 1795: 1767: 399:, 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. 261:, 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. ( 2107:

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.

2581:* 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. 664: 111:(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 1627:

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

2096: 1155:, revision deletion and the attribution requirement were not widely understood. Since then, administrators have gained years of hands-on experience with revision deletion, and 2970:

Surely if the only person entitled to claim the right to be attributed requests revision deletion of their username or IP address, they are asking to no longer be attributed?

1439:

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.

2316:

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

375:

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.

1459:. 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. 2065:

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.

1799: 993: 403: 2291: 2196: 535: 432:, 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 2760:

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.

1520: 1152: 672: 668: 656: 72: 67: 59: 907:

above. To state it differently: assuming my samples are representative, the restrictive interpretation has been violated almost every day for over 10 years.

682:

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.

2851: 2491:

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 "

2439:

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

742: 2873:

Is there some reason on the page history of a random Knowledge (XXG) page as to why some gets one line and others get two (see the recent history of

2334:

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

278: 1730: 1505: 1156: 660: 649: 2584: 2556: 336:

had been vandalized and revdel. Afterwards, the page preview read out the revdel'd content (a repeated death threat), which was fixed after

1763: 655:

A recurring opinion is something along the lines of "Licensing attribution is self-evident, so the mention must mean something more." When

2188: 2886: 2245: 2204: 2103:

have not been hidden, just the revision contents, and a list of contributors' usernames is sufficient, as explained above. While there

93:

that fits this criterion would be information that a government would likely claim was releasing government secrets inappropriately.

47: 17: 2335: 2125:. Isn't there also an option to delete a revision along with the author information? Or does the tool retain authorship in all cases? 507: 2180: 2008: 729: 614: 2365:

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

1307:

I don't think option 2 is a good idea because edit summaries sometimes contain copyvio, but it's better than the current state.

385:

so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently

1355: 360: 2602: 2588: 2548: 2372: 1746: 1421: 1125: 1092: 679: 2381:

This would eliminate all concerns about RD1 being used to tamper with attribution data (or edit summaries, for that matter).

640:

As RD1 is the copyright criterion, its "attribution" should be interpreted consistent with copyright policy pages, including

104: 2897: 1554:

assuming my samples are representative, the restrictive interpretation has been violated almost every day for over 10 years.

1400: 1396: 1378: 1170: 1166: 817: 813: 2711:? Removal is supported by a significant majority. (The other opposers contributed only a few times and have low activity.) 1770:) lacks this part. I have now asked WMF Legal whether adding it there as well would be beneficial. Anyway, as linked to by 1056:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2829:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

780:) to be strange and confusing in the context of RD1, and never really applicable to the way the redactions are performed. 2803: 2708: 1140:

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

3032: 2977: 996:

in May 2010. I suspect that there was some lag for procedures to develop and administrators to onboard. For example,

659:

was being considered in September–October 2009, the attribution requirement was not widely understood among editors.

1557: 1351: 812:

clearly stated, possibly in a way that applies to all RD criteria. There's already some exposition in the sections

356: 337: 38: 1722: 641: 561: 1699:

The assumption on your part is incorrect in the case of revision deletes. CC-BY-SA 3.0 states under section 4(c)

474:" appearing between 2012 and 2017 and compressing the date range, they look similar with varied revision counts. 345: 2944:

This policy currently says that one of the acceptable scenarios to RD a username but not the edit's content is

1712: 2839: 767:

that WMF Legal's perspective is that attribution in form of a list of names in the pages history is suitable.

1489:

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

542:. The licensing details are not in dispute here, but they have been raised regularly in similar discussions. 3084: 3080: 3000: 2882: 2807: 2673: 2596: 2440: 2393: 2339: 2325: 2295: 2271: 2267: 2249: 2226: 2222: 2200: 2192: 2184: 2176: 1959: 1836: 1734: 1567: 1545: 1184: 1107: 1103: 1000: 746: 738: 610: 606: 589: 515: 2843: 1726: 1571: 1502:

A null edit crediting the contributors after the redaction would however be acceptable, wherever practical.

645: 3027: 2993: 2972: 2499:" which is considerably different, and they each require different methods of handling, particularly when 1738: 1628: 1534: 1526: 1513: 1509: 1493: 1007: 100: 2901: 718:

Thank you to Flatscan for his clear and thorough statement of the position. I endorse his view entirely.—

178: 2999:

either need to be revdelled too and/or fall below the threshold of originality—but it does happen, e.g.

1685: 312: 289: 188: 143: 2949: 3096: 3074: 3059: 3041: 3019: 2986: 2964: 2931: 2913: 2890: 2863: 2819: 2796: 2766: 2753: 2735: 2720: 2685: 2660: 2646: 2634: 2534: 2517: 2486: 2466: 2452: 2434: 2420: 2405: 2387: 2351: 2329: 2307: 2283: 2261: 2238: 2216: 2153: 2138: 2116: 2086: 2052: 2030: 2012: 1989: 1971: 1950: 1926: 1912: 1888: 1863: 1829: 1803: 1783: 1758: 1716: 1691: 1670: 1640: 1622: 1604: 1592: 1484: 1448: 1433: 1408: 1404:

going to remove mention of this limitation then we're also going to have to rewrite those sections. –

1390: 1372: 1359: 1336: 1317: 1298: 1277: 1240: 1216: 1183:"Knowledge (XXG)'s licensing requires that individual diffs must be visible." This interpretation was 1070: 1044: 1019: 891: 877: 868: 852: 838: 824: 804: 789: 771: 758: 733: 711: 694: 626: 601: 582: 519: 493: 483: 445: 422: 364: 348: 315: 293: 241: 214: 191: 165: 147: 2804:

WP:Closure requests#Knowledge (XXG) talk:Revision deletion#RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1

2749: 2656: 2630: 2513: 2257: 2004: 1985: 1618: 1508:, although it was not yet a guideline at the time. I don't see an issue in either of MRG's comments: 1480: 1429: 725: 341: 233: 206: 406:

there are brief statistics on the number of revisions deleted in the 1,000 most recent instances of

2909: 2731: 2462: 2416: 2149: 2112: 1871:, as proposer. I prefer 1 because I think the added sentence is unnecessary, but 2A is acceptable. 1708: 1444: 1386: 1273: 1263: 1236: 1040: 785: 161: 2847: 1122:

If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used.

1089:

If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used.

778:

If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used.

539: 3092: 3070: 2927: 2878: 2859: 2815: 2792: 2781: 2716: 2681: 2448: 2430: 2401: 2347: 2321: 2314:

If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used

2303: 2279: 2234: 2212: 1967: 1922: 1884: 1876: 1859: 1851: 1825: 1817: 1779: 1754: 1636: 1588: 1212: 1066: 1015: 887: 864: 848: 834: 800: 754: 690: 622: 597: 578: 511: 479: 441: 130:: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". User:Black Kite does NOT even appear in 859:

I plan to create a RfC to propose removing the clause and sentence that mention "attribution".

2742:

I neither object to your closing the discussion nor will I challenge the outcome on that basis

2483: 2026: 1405: 1369: 874: 821: 553: 490: 419: 112: 2740:

Thank you for asking me this, I appreciate the consideration and answer in two parts. First,

1741:. Revision deletion (usernames visible in the same place in the page history) affects credit 1061:

Should the clause and sentence that mention "attribution" be removed from the RD1 criterion?

380: 2045: 1679: 1180:

Readers are invited to speculate, "It must mean something more, otherwise why is it there?"

307: 300: 285: 183: 172: 139: 2560: 2504: 407: 262: 221: 127: 2745: 2702: 2652: 2626: 2592: 2509: 2253: 1998: 1981: 1614: 1476: 1425: 768: 719: 227: 200: 177:

it's a waste of time even discussing this. It's calling not for a change in RevDel but in

123: 2919: 966: 471: 388: 2905: 2727: 2458: 2412: 2145: 2122: 2108: 1704:

and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors

1516:. I read them as concern that admins may hide usernames, which does remove attribution. 1440: 1382: 1269: 1259: 1232: 1036: 781: 3088: 3066: 2923: 2855: 2811: 2788: 2712: 2677: 2524: 2444: 2426: 2397: 2343: 2299: 2275: 2230: 2208: 1963: 1942: 1932: 1918: 1904: 1880: 1872: 1855: 1847: 1821: 1813: 1775: 1771: 1750: 1721:

Your independent reading of the CC-BY-SA license invents a problem not recognized by

1632: 1610: 1584: 1208: 1062: 1011: 883: 860: 844: 830: 796: 750: 686: 618: 593: 574: 475: 437: 1980:

comfortable to work with revision deletion removing the name of a user under RD1. --

1808:

Attribution is preserved. This is clear in the proposal, and the newly-added Option

1530:

To meet the attribution requirements, "X, Y and Z wrote this article" is sufficient.

2698: 2172: 2126: 2092: 2074: 2022: 1329: 1310: 1291: 704: 333: 2621:

so the spoiler doesn't quite apply. For the record, I suppose it would be good if

2320:

and I am never certain when doing so would remove any contributor's attribution.

3051: 3011: 3004: 2956: 2761: 2641: 2540: 2529: 2382: 2040: 1665: 1599: 1497: 1118:

that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors

1085:

that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors

136:

Talk:Nazism#Reverting revisions without allowing others to see what was reverted

135: 96: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2900:, while two lines (and a black strikethrough) indicates that the edit has been 1631:– months before revision deletion was enabled for admins – and never restored. 1564:) includes multiple many-revision RD1 deletions that contradict your position. 418:

Is this really OK? Why is it so common? Where exactly do we draw the line? –

2707:

Will you accept me closing this discussion, or do you insist that I file at

549: 2896:

One line (and a light gray strikethrough) indicates that the edit has been

678:

393:

RevisionDelete is mainly intended for simple use and fairly recent material

2625:

commented regarding the intent of RD1's original language. Best regards.--

843:

What is your definition of "attribution"? Is it individual diffs (blame)?

2774: 2622: 2425:

Good catch! It had crossed my mind, but I hoped it wouldn't be an issue.

1937: 1899: 567:

A list of authors does not include page content and cannot provide blame.

118:

I'm writing now because an hour ago I got a notice that the article on "

1662:

Only the redaction of revision text is permissible under this criterion

829:

I split this from your section to focus on the "attribution" wording.

652:(guideline). They use it in the context of the licensing requirements. 107:

were communist organizations. If someone had claimed that some other

965:=10 revisions each day; +many "Orphaned non-free file(s) deleted per 258: 119: 3025:

something similar when importing content with a compatible licence?

415:

affected almost the entire history, sometimes going back a decade.

1854:) 05:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC) – struck, being discussed below. 986:=10 revisions each day, except 2022-01-04 which had only 2 hours 564:

b.iii, specifies a list of authors as a valid attribution method.

1468:

And when it was changed, it was changed to the current language

992:

I started with 2012-01-01 because it is just over 10 years ago.

2834:

Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?

1737:

a few weeks ago. WP:CWW has quoted that portion of the license

1268:

Now that it has been revised, I support either option 1 or 2A.

2066: 1579:

If we continue, we should move this to a new subsection below

1199: 665:

WT:Copying within Knowledge (XXG)/Archive 1#Guideline proposal

25: 2948:. Is that accurate? To me, that does not seem compliant with 2547:, and: it is subordinate to the "best practices" outlined at 2095:! I hope an example can clear some things up. If you look at 470:(82). Aside from many "Orphaned non-free file(s) deleted per 2601:

Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at

2371:

Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at

1159:

was promoted to a guideline and continues to be cited often.

1124:

Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at

1091:

Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at

1768:

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-discussiontools-replywidget-terms-click

570:

Therefore, the licensing requirements do not include blame.

429: 396: 1195:, a similar proposal from 2017, was opposed on this basis. 1935:: I preferred the old text, but I'm still fine with it. – 743:

WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh

2787:

and my ~~~~ signature. Are there any other suggestions?

1917:

Would you confirm if you support the revised Option 2A?

1106:

and added by Flatscan at 05:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC);

2874: 2619: 2616: 2613: 1841:

I believe that they are close enough to count previous

1561: 1523:, which affirmed that a list of authors is sufficient. 1472: 1469: 1466: 1255: 1188: 974: 953: 936: 764: 467: 463: 455: 131: 588:

This was confirmed by WMF Legal around the same time:

795:

the in-text-attribution and the copyvio ("cleanup").

663:

would be promoted to guideline around a month later (

657:

WT:Revision deletion/Archive 1#Community consultation

2503:

which definitely precludes the use of RD1 (consider

2392:

Thanks for proposing this again, it's a great idea.

1544:Your stance does not conform with actual practice. 433: 2069:that's the case, then please interpret this as an 1879:) 05:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC) – updated 2 to 2A 1820:) 05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC) – updated 2 to 2A 675:(2014) clarify that licensing is the sole concern. 609:to be more favorable to their interpretation, and 1839:and relabeled the original proposal as Option 1. 1506:WP:Copying within Knowledge (XXG)#List of authors 1381:remains policy regardless of this RfC's outcome. 1377:It's hardly the "only provision against misuse". 818:Knowledge (XXG):Revision deletion#Large-scale use 548:is a user's precise contribution, the individual 2375:and should take precedence over this criterion. 1128:and should take precedence over this criterion. 395:...). However, from the recent discussions (see 2605:and should take precedence over this criterion. 1095:and should take precedence over this criterion. 776:Like Hut 8.5, I've always found that sentence ( 257:I asked, because I got a notice of a change to 2852:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Biography 2595:, and revision deletion has been subsequently 1192: 1151:option so the username remains visible." When 2573: 2366: 1519:RD1 was discussed in 2014 by MLauba and MRG: 1112: 1079: 669:WT:Revision deletion/Archive 1#Some questions 8: 1453:Considering the original language for RD1: " 1147:In practice, it boils down to "Deselect the 506:I am becoming increasing uncomfortable with 454:. I sampled 500 revision deletions starting 2775:#RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1 2501:free-content edits overlie the infringement 2377:Only revision text may be hidden under RD1. 2336:previous comments by DanCherek and ToBeFree 2039:that copyvios can be revdelled on sight. — 1549: 279:Knowledge (XXG):Congressional staffer edits 3079:I made the proposed changes in two edits: 2651:I'm good; thanks for your reply. Cheers.-- 2545:Blatant violations of the copyright policy 2369:Blatant violations of the copyright policy 1774:above, the TOU say this as well (§7.b.i). 1723:wmf:Terms of Use § 7. Licensing of Content 1538:Attribution is fully satisfied by the list 1521:WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording 1115:Blatant violations of the copyright policy 1082:Blatant violations of the copyright policy 1025:RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1 673:WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording 642:wmf:Terms of Use § 7. Licensing of Content 562:wmf:Terms of Use § 7. Licensing of Content 2591:has been conducted, the article has been 1153:RD1 was drafted in September–October 2009 2618:and published without proper attribution 2266:Archived on 11 March 2022 by Barkeep49 ( 2144:RD1, to address some editors' concerns. 994:Revision deletion was enabled for admins 909: 814:Knowledge (XXG):Revision deletion#Misuse 2773:Okay, I will list there with a link to 1664:before pointing to the WP:CP guidance. 1556:The first page (default 50 actions) of 430:#RD1, attribution and intervening edits 397:#RD1, attribution and intervening edits 2945: 2838:Your feedback would be appreciated at 2726:An uninvolved editor should close it. 2313: 1796:2601:647:5800:1A1F:B59F:66D4:2C8D:EA30 1700: 1553: 1537: 1529: 1501: 1454: 1251: 1246:Addendum: I support option 1 only and 1130:Username must not be hidden under RD1. 777: 451: 392: 384: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Revision deletion 2869:One or two lines on the time of edits 1580: 536:WP:Attribution does not require blame 7: 2940:"where all changes will be reverted" 2615:which is not the text written by you 2576:Gross violations of copyright policy 2570:Gross violations of copyright policy 2292:WP:Administrators' newsletter/2022/3 1764:MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning 1570:feels non-neutral, which approaches 1052:The following discussion is closed. 749:before creating these sub-sections. 617:is the version before their change. 2312:The problem I have always had with 1735:the perspective shared by WMF Legal 1189:#Attribution does not require blame 2946:where all changes will be reverted 2221:The RfC expired on 19 March 2022 ( 530:Attribution does not require blame 508:Talk:List of country calling codes 450:I infer a recent development from 24: 1731:WP:Copying within Knowledge (XXG) 1157:WP:Copying within Knowledge (XXG) 1110:at 05:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 661:WP:Copying within Knowledge (XXG) 650:WP:Copying within Knowledge (XXG) 2825:The discussion above is closed. 2197:WT:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup 1200:#Meaning of "attribution" in RD1 615:Special:PermanentLink/1078110743 328:Revdel messing with page preview 29: 2579:This criterion may be used for: 1869:Support removal, Option 1 or 2A 1266:) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 747:I had mentioned my intent there 635:Meaning of "attribution" in RD1 2608:This is consistent with RD1's 1727:WP:Copyrights § Re-use of text 1149:Delete editor's username or IP 882:No replacement, just removal. 646:WP:Copyrights § Re-use of text 105:American Civil Liberties Union 1: 3075:05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC) 2686:05:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 2661:14:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 2647:13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 2635:08:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 2535:10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 2518:22:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 2487:21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 2467:05:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 2453:05:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 2435:05:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 2421:05:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 2406:05:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 2388:09:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 2262:07:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 2217:05:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 2019:Support the revised option 2A 1972:05:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 1927:05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 1913:17:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1889:05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 1864:05:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1830:05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 1804:00:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1759:05:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 1717:00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC) 1692:18:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 1671:18:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 1641:05:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC) 1623:00:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC) 1605:18:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 1593:05:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 1485:03:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 1449:14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 1434:10:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 1409:23:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1391:14:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1373:14:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1360:12:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1337:10:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 1318:17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1299:08:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1278:05:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 1241:06:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1217:05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1071:05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 1020:05:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 892:05:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC) 878:14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 869:05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 853:05:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 839:05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 825:15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 602:05:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC) 494:13:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 484:05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 452:it has now become commonplace 446:05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 423:02:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 371:Deletion of intervening edits 365:18:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 349:18:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 316:08:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 294:04:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 265:does not apply in this case.) 242:04:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 215:04:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 192:16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 166:16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 148:15:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 88:RevDel criteria far too broad 3097:05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC) 2553:blatant copyright violations 2543:. To clarify: if RD1 is for 2497:blatant copyright violations 2493:complex copyright violations 2411:it shouldn't be prohibited. 1739:since it was a draft in 2009 1609:Your rebuttal is compelling 1171:Changing visibility settings 873:And replace it with what? – 805:21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC) 790:16:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) 772:05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) 759:05:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) 734:02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) 712:17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 695:05:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 583:05:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 3060:11:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 3042:11:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 3020:10:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2987:10:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 2965:09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 1500:. Note this clarification: 1253:it shouldn't be prohibited. 911:Revision deletion samples, 560:The Wikimedia Foundation's 3123: 2820:04:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 2797:04:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC) 2767:13:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2754:10:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2736:05:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2721:04:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2284:04:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 2239:04:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 2154:23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2139:23:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2117:23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2097:this history of this draft 2087:22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 2053:09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 1658:Support removal, option 2A 1558:Special:Log/Moonriddengirl 1504:This method is covered by 1424:as the superseding text.-- 1193:#RfC on Change RD1-wording 1187:a few weeks ago. Also see 627:04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC) 520:01:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC) 2932:04:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) 2914:22:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC) 2891:22:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC) 2864:16:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC) 2539:Thank you for your reply 2352:05:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC) 2330:11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 2308:05:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 2246:WP:Centralized discussion 2205:WP:Centralized discussion 2031:20:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) 2013:11:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 1990:09:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 1951:19:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 1812:2A is even more precise. 1784:19:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 1572:WP:Canvassing#Campaigning 428:I suggest moving this to 2827:Please do not modify it. 2674:I revised Option 2 to 2A 2181:WP:Village pump (policy) 1960:I revised Option 2 to 2A 1568:Your notification of MRG 1492:The current wording was 1054:Please do not modify it. 1045:02:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC) 948:=10 revisions most days 739:I linked this discussion 671:(also October 2009) and 607:Uanfala edited the essay 132:Nazism: Revision history 3085:Special:Diff/1134877458 3081:Special:Diff/1134877408 3001:Special:Diff/1113763870 2777:with no message beyond 2441:revising Option 2 to 2A 1845:s toward Option 2 also. 1550:#Historical RD1 samples 1008:moved to Template space 590:Special:Diff/1068782406 2607: 2585:Complicated violations 2380: 2340:background from MLauba 1837:I added a new Option 2 1514:Special:Diff/318846041 1510:Special:Diff/318470703 1463:advocated on this page 1250:per my comment below: 1133: 1108:2A revised by Flatscan 1097: 902:Historical RD1 samples 332:Hi! Recently the page 101:League of Women Voters 2603:WP:Copyright problems 2549:Wp:Copyright problems 2373:WP:Copyright problems 2203:). I did not list at 2189:WT:Copyright problems 1747:WP:Selective deletion 1548:in a new subsection, 1422:WP:Copyright problems 1352:Justlettersandnumbers 1185:debunked by WMF Legal 1126:WP:Copyright problems 1093:WP:Copyright problems 680:WP:Selective deletion 434:#"Attribution" in RD1 357:ScottishFinnishRadish 338:ScottishFinnishRadish 254:Thanks for the reply. 224:for the reasons why. 42:of past discussions. 2063:only contribution(s) 1745:than the superseded 1733:(guideline), nor by 1457:copyright violations 525:"Attribution" in RD1 2709:WP:Closure requests 2396:as a new Option 2. 1629:promotion to policy 1494:originally proposed 915: 502:Vulnerable talkpage 2918:As illustrated at 1552:. Quoting myself: 1145:Overly complicated 1104:proposed by MLauba 1055: 1010:in November 2010. 910: 763:Noting that I was 2994:WereSpielChequers 2877:for an example). 2610:original language 2171:Notifications: {{ 2011: 1894:Support Option 2. 1581:#Discussion (RD1) 1461:" was certainly " 1326:Also support 2A. 1053: 990: 989: 732: 238: 211: 122:" was changed by 113:Nikita Khrushchev 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3114: 3058: 3056: 3054: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3018: 3016: 3014: 2997: 2984: 2980: 2975: 2963: 2961: 2959: 2904:or oversighted. 2898:revision deleted 2786: 2780: 2706: 2166:Discussion (RD1) 2136: 2131: 2084: 2079: 2048: 2003: 1949: 1940: 1911: 1902: 1688: 1682: 1397:#Large-scale use 1379:#Large-scale use 1332: 1313: 1294: 1033:Consensus for 2A 1005: 999: 979:2022-01-04 02:03 958:2017-01-03 14:58 941:2012-01-20 12:26 916: 914: 724: 707: 310: 304: 239: 236: 232: 230: 212: 209: 205: 203: 186: 176: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3122: 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3052: 3049: 3048: 3037: 3033: 3028: 3012: 3009: 3008: 2991: 2982: 2978: 2973: 2957: 2954: 2953: 2942: 2871: 2840:this discussion 2836: 2831: 2830: 2784: 2778: 2696: 2694: 2561:speedy deletion 2362: 2168: 2132: 2127: 2080: 2075: 2046: 1977:Support removal 1938: 1936: 1900: 1898: 1686: 1680: 1676:Support removal 1348:Support removal 1330: 1311: 1292: 1285:Support removal 1248:oppose option 2 1228:Support removal 1224: 1138: 1136:Rationale (RD1) 1058: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1027: 1003: 997: 912: 904: 765:explicitly told 705: 637: 532: 527: 504: 373: 346:Please ping me! 342:A. C. Santacruz 330: 308: 298: 234: 228: 226: 207: 201: 199: 184: 170: 124:User:Black Kite 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3120: 3118: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 2941: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2870: 2867: 2835: 2832: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2771: 2770: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2693: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2600: 2582: 2580: 2578: 2489: 2484:Uanfala (talk) 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2361: 2360:Option 2 (RD1) 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2310: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2106: 2102: 2064: 2055: 2036:Strong support 2033: 2015: 1992: 1974: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1891: 1866: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1761: 1709:Elephanthunter 1694: 1673: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1565: 1562:permanent link 1546:I posted above 1542: 1541: 1540: 1532: 1517: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1406:Uanfala (talk) 1370:Uanfala (talk) 1362: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1321: 1320: 1302: 1301: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1223: 1220: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1196: 1178:Misinterpreted 1175: 1160: 1137: 1134: 1059: 1050: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1026: 1023: 1001:Copyvio-revdel 988: 987: 985:RD1 with : --> 983: 980: 977: 971: 970: 964:RD1 with : --> 962: 959: 956: 950: 949: 947:RD1 with : --> 945: 942: 939: 933: 932: 929: 923: 920: 903: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 875:Uanfala (talk) 857: 856: 855: 841: 822:Uanfala (talk) 809: 808: 807: 774: 761: 736: 715: 714: 684: 683: 676: 653: 648:(policy), and 636: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 572: 571: 568: 565: 531: 528: 526: 523: 503: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 491:Uanfala (talk) 448: 420:Uanfala (talk) 379:is tolerated ( 372: 369: 368: 367: 329: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 282: 274: 270: 266: 255: 247: 246: 245: 244: 217: 194: 99:said that the 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3119: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3057:(she|they|xe) 3055: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3036: 3031: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3017:(she|they|xe) 3015: 3006: 3002: 2995: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2962:(she|they|xe) 2960: 2951: 2947: 2939: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2868: 2866: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2844:WP:DEADNAMING 2841: 2833: 2828: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2783: 2776: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2704: 2700: 2692:Closing (RD1) 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2672: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2614: 2611: 2606: 2604: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589:investigation 2586: 2577: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2531: 2526: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2364: 2363: 2359: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2322:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2319: 2315: 2311: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2290:Mentioned in 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2130: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2104: 2100: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2083: 2078: 2072: 2068: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2042: 2037: 2034: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001: 1996: 1993: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1975: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1952: 1948: 1946: 1941: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1908: 1903: 1895: 1892: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1844: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1729:(policy), or 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1698: 1697:Strong Oppose 1695: 1693: 1689: 1683: 1677: 1674: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1656: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1603: 1601: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1573: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1522: 1518: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1458: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1416: 1410: 1407: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1249: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1111: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1096: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1057: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1024: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1002: 995: 984: 981: 978: 976: 973: 972: 968: 963: 960: 957: 955: 952: 951: 946: 943: 940: 938: 935: 934: 930: 928: 924: 921: 918: 917: 908: 901: 893: 889: 885: 881: 880: 879: 876: 872: 871: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 840: 836: 832: 828: 827: 826: 823: 819: 815: 810: 806: 802: 798: 793: 792: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 773: 770: 769:Moneytrees🏝️ 766: 762: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 737: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722: 717: 716: 713: 710: 709: 708: 699: 698: 697: 696: 692: 688: 681: 677: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 651: 647: 643: 639: 638: 634: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 586: 585: 584: 580: 576: 569: 566: 563: 559: 558: 557: 555: 551: 547: 543: 541: 537: 529: 524: 522: 521: 517: 513: 509: 501: 495: 492: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 447: 443: 439: 436:and the RfC. 435: 431: 427: 426: 425: 424: 421: 416: 412: 409: 405: 400: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 376: 370: 366: 362: 358: 353: 352: 351: 350: 347: 343: 339: 335: 327: 317: 314: 311: 302: 297: 296: 295: 291: 287: 283: 280: 275: 271: 267: 264: 260: 256: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 243: 240: 237: 231: 223: 218: 216: 213: 210: 204: 195: 193: 190: 187: 180: 174: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 158: 152: 151: 150: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 116: 114: 110: 106: 102: 98: 94: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3026: 2971: 2943: 2872: 2837: 2826: 2772: 2764: 2741: 2695: 2644: 2609: 2575: 2574: 2569: 2565: 2552: 2544: 2532: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2385: 2376: 2368: 2367: 2317: 2133: 2128: 2081: 2076: 2070: 2057: 2044: 2035: 2018: 1999: 1994: 1976: 1944: 1906: 1893: 1868: 1842: 1840: 1809: 1790: 1742: 1703: 1696: 1675: 1668: 1661: 1657: 1602: 1462: 1456: 1417: 1364: 1347: 1328: 1327: 1309: 1308: 1290: 1289: 1284: 1247: 1245: 1227: 1207: 1177: 1167:Notes on use 1162: 1148: 1144: 1139: 1129: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1113: 1099: 1098: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1075: 1074: 1060: 1051: 1032: 991: 926: 905: 720: 703: 702: 685: 573: 554:page history 545: 544: 533: 505: 459: 417: 413: 404:this subpage 401: 377: 374: 334:Sayani Gupta 331: 225: 198: 179:WP:OVERSIGHT 156: 155: 117: 108: 95: 91: 78: 43: 37: 2920:WP:OS#Table 2175:|policy}} ( 2058:Weak Oppose 1681:Sennecaster 1498:User:MLauba 309:Doug Weller 301:DavidMCEddy 286:DavidMCEddy 273:revisions". 185:Doug Weller 173:DavidMCEddy 140:DavidMCEddy 138:. Thanks, 97:Kris Kobach 36:This is an 2902:suppressed 2854:. Thanks, 2842:regarding 2802:Listed as 2746:John Cline 2703:John Cline 2653:John Cline 2627:John Cline 2566:as written 2510:John Cline 2394:I added it 2254:John Cline 2000:S Marshall 1995:Support 2A 1982:Trialpears 1776:~ ToBeFree 1615:John Cline 1477:John Cline 1426:John Cline 1222:Poll (RD1) 975:2022-01-01 954:2017-01-01 937:2012-01-01 797:~ ToBeFree 721:S Marshall 611:I reverted 534:I created 468:2022-01-01 466:(59), and 464:2017-01-01 456:2012-01-01 229:Acroterion 202:Acroterion 109:individual 2906:DanCherek 2875:this page 2848:WP:REVDEL 2782:Initiated 2728:DanCherek 2597:requested 2587:after an 2557:described 2482:place. – 2459:DanCherek 2413:DanCherek 2146:DanCherek 2123:DanCherek 2109:DanCherek 2101:usernames 1441:DanCherek 1383:DanCherek 1270:DanCherek 1260:DanCherek 1233:DanCherek 1163:Redundant 1100:Option 2A 1041:pingó mió 1037:Galobtter 913:limit=500 782:DanCherek 157:North8000 126:saying, " 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 3089:Flatscan 3067:Flatscan 3038:Chequers 2983:Chequers 2950:CC BY-SA 2924:Mathglot 2887:Contribs 2856:Mathglot 2812:Flatscan 2789:Flatscan 2713:Flatscan 2678:Flatscan 2525:Flatscan 2508:worse.-- 2457:Thanks! 2445:Flatscan 2427:Flatscan 2398:Flatscan 2344:Flatscan 2300:Flatscan 2276:Flatscan 2231:Flatscan 2209:Flatscan 2121:Thanks, 1964:Flatscan 1933:Flatscan 1919:Flatscan 1881:Flatscan 1873:Flatscan 1856:Flatscan 1848:Flatscan 1822:Flatscan 1814:Flatscan 1772:Flatscan 1751:Flatscan 1702:credits 1633:Flatscan 1611:Flatscan 1585:Flatscan 1473:this RfC 1455:Blatant 1209:Flatscan 1076:Option 1 1063:Flatscan 1012:Flatscan 919:Starting 884:Flatscan 861:Flatscan 845:Flatscan 831:Flatscan 751:Flatscan 687:Flatscan 619:Flatscan 594:Flatscan 575:Flatscan 476:Flatscan 458:(Ctrl-F 438:Flatscan 284:Thanks, 103:and the 2699:Uanfala 2593:cleaned 2505:CSD-G12 2195:), and 2093:AlexEng 2073:!vote. 2023:Diannaa 1843:support 1527:MLauba: 1401:#Misuse 1331:Hut 8.5 1312:Hut 8.5 1293:Hut 8.5 1191:above. 925:Ctrl-F 922:Through 706:Hut 8.5 552:in the 462:: 88), 381:WP:CPAA 39:archive 3053:Tamzin 3013:Tamzin 3005:Oshwah 2958:Tamzin 2762:MLauba 2642:MLauba 2559:, and 2551:where 2541:MLauba 2530:MLauba 2383:MLauba 2272:diff 2 2268:diff 1 2227:diff 2 2223:diff 1 2071:oppose 2041:Bilorv 1791:Oppose 1666:MLauba 1600:MLauba 1418:Oppose 1365:Oppose 1202:above. 931:Notes 538:as an 408:WP:RD1 269:times. 263:WP:BLP 259:Nazism 235:(talk) 222:WP:BLP 208:(talk) 120:Nazism 3034:Spiel 2979:Spiel 1395:Both 741:from 546:Blame 540:essay 389:WP:RD 16:< 3093:talk 3083:and 3071:talk 3029:Ϣere 3003:(CC 2974:Ϣere 2928:talk 2910:talk 2883:Swan 2879:Iggy 2860:talk 2846:and 2816:talk 2808:diff 2793:talk 2750:talk 2732:talk 2717:talk 2701:and 2682:talk 2657:talk 2631:talk 2555:are 2514:talk 2463:talk 2449:talk 2431:talk 2417:talk 2402:talk 2348:talk 2338:and 2326:talk 2318:text 2304:talk 2296:diff 2280:talk 2258:talk 2252:) -- 2250:diff 2235:talk 2213:talk 2201:diff 2193:diff 2185:diff 2177:diff 2150:talk 2129:Alex 2113:talk 2077:Alex 2047:talk 2027:talk 2021:. — 1986:talk 1968:talk 1945:Talk 1923:talk 1907:Talk 1885:talk 1877:talk 1860:talk 1852:talk 1826:talk 1818:talk 1800:talk 1780:talk 1755:talk 1743:less 1713:talk 1687:Chat 1637:talk 1619:talk 1589:talk 1535:MRG: 1481:talk 1471:per 1445:talk 1430:talk 1399:and 1387:talk 1356:talk 1274:talk 1264:talk 1256:This 1237:talk 1213:talk 1174:RD1. 1169:and 1165:The 1102:– 2 1067:talk 1016:talk 1006:was 888:talk 865:talk 849:talk 835:talk 816:and 801:talk 786:talk 755:talk 691:talk 623:talk 598:talk 579:talk 550:diff 516:talk 480:talk 442:talk 361:talk 313:talk 290:talk 189:talk 162:talk 144:talk 3050:-- 3010:-- 3007:). 2955:-- 2885:) ( 2850:at 2623:FT2 2187:), 2179:), 2173:rfc 2134:Eng 2105:are 2091:Hi 2082:Eng 2067:Iff 1939:MJL 1901:MJL 1496:by 927:rd1 667:). 512:CMD 460:rd1 402:At 128:RD2 3095:) 3087:. 3073:) 2930:) 2922:. 2912:) 2889:) 2862:) 2818:) 2810:) 2795:) 2785:}} 2779:{{ 2752:) 2734:) 2719:) 2684:) 2676:. 2659:) 2633:) 2583:* 2516:) 2465:) 2451:) 2443:. 2433:) 2419:) 2404:) 2350:) 2342:. 2328:) 2306:) 2298:) 2282:) 2274:) 2270:, 2260:) 2237:) 2229:) 2225:, 2215:) 2207:. 2152:) 2115:) 2051:) 2029:) 2017:I 1988:) 1970:) 1962:. 1925:) 1887:) 1862:) 1828:) 1802:) 1782:) 1757:) 1725:, 1715:) 1690:) 1639:) 1621:) 1591:) 1583:. 1512:, 1483:) 1465:". 1447:) 1432:) 1389:) 1358:) 1276:) 1239:) 1215:) 1120:. 1087:. 1069:) 1043:) 1018:) 1004:}} 998:{{ 982:82 969:" 967:F5 961:59 944:88 890:) 867:) 851:) 837:) 803:) 788:) 757:) 745:. 693:) 644:, 625:) 613:. 600:) 592:. 581:) 556:. 518:) 482:) 472:F5 444:) 391:: 387:; 383:: 363:) 344:⁂ 292:) 164:) 146:) 64:← 3091:( 3069:( 2996:: 2992:@ 2926:( 2908:( 2881:( 2858:( 2814:( 2806:( 2791:( 2769:S 2748:( 2730:( 2715:( 2705:: 2697:@ 2680:( 2655:( 2629:( 2612:, 2599:. 2512:( 2461:( 2447:( 2429:( 2415:( 2400:( 2346:( 2324:( 2302:( 2294:( 2278:( 2256:( 2248:( 2233:( 2211:( 2199:( 2191:( 2183:( 2148:( 2111:( 2043:( 2025:( 2009:C 2007:/ 2005:T 1984:( 1966:( 1947:‐ 1943:‐ 1931:@ 1921:( 1909:‐ 1905:‐ 1897:– 1883:( 1875:( 1858:( 1850:( 1824:( 1816:( 1810:2 1798:( 1778:( 1753:( 1711:( 1684:( 1635:( 1617:( 1587:( 1574:. 1560:( 1479:( 1443:( 1428:( 1385:( 1354:( 1272:( 1262:( 1235:( 1211:( 1065:( 1039:( 1014:( 886:( 863:( 847:( 833:( 799:( 784:( 753:( 730:C 728:/ 726:T 689:( 621:( 596:( 577:( 514:( 478:( 440:( 359:( 303:: 299:@ 288:( 281:? 175:: 171:@ 160:( 142:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Revision deletion/Archive 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index