Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion/Noticeboard

Opening discussion

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 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 (T•C•G) 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 (T•C•G) 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 thread

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 (T•C•G) 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 (T•C•G) 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 Denied – talk 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 colors

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

So when does this motherfucker go live?

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)