Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3

Criterion RD3 presently allows for deletion of "purely disruptive material". It is alleged that such a description is vague and leaves too much interpretation open to administrators. It is proposed that this criterion be either clarified or removed to more adequately meet the needs of the criteria for redaction. The purpose of this RFC is to determine whether such clarification is necessary and to evaluate possible changes to the policy to meet those demands. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

View from Shirik
The criterion RD3 is currently heavily overused. Examples of misuse include such edits as and  (sorry, non-administrators cannot view these links presently). Such edits certainly qualify as "purely disruptive", but so does any vandalism. Revision deletion has significant GFDL-related consequences as well as going against the concepts of public review and an open encyclopedia. Additionally, revision deletion can sometimes tend to violate WP:DENY. These deletions are not limited to particular administrators; many are making these deletions because of the lack of guidance offered by RD3. Since it is (as far as I know) fairly agreed-upon that not all vandalism should be deleted, I propose that RD3 be clarified to be more strict on what qualifies as "purely disruptive".
 * note for non-admins: this edit was an ip user adding "are belong to us. " to the top of the page, while this edit was an ip user adding "OPR: Operation Pain Relief" to the top of that page. -- slakr \ talk / 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) As author -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Though I'm mainly of the belief that revision deletion should be reserved for stuff that's oversight-worthy or things close enough to it (e.g., bad urls/virus urls/other things dangerous to users). - slakr \ talk / 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) --Cube lurker (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Can't criticise the admins for those diffs, they're arguably within the overly broad wording of the criterion. So lets narrow the wording. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Although I can't read the diffs I fully agree with the last sentence and the assertion that this is used too often. Its disconcerting that we can delete past revisions under such broad criteria, since our page histories should be as open as possible. Admins who delete revisions under this should be prepared to explain why the edits, once reverted and in the page history, would continue to be disruptive.  Them  From  Space  06:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Smallman12q (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. But just to be fair, the diffs shown above were part of a series of similar revdels of disruption from the same user, which should be taken as a whole, not just singled-out cases. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

View from Beeblebrox
I'm willing to consider the possibility that there is a systemic problem of this criterion being overused, but the evidence provided so far is two diffs from within the past few days. That does little to convince that this is a widespread, ongoing problem. Those two uses of RevDel do seem inappropriate and overzealous, but two incidents is hardly a demonstration that there is a pattern. If you want to prove a change is needed a bit more research seems in order.


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Another view from Beeblebrox
I think a lot of what we are seeing here is that some non-admin users are upset because they can't see what has been removed and they would like to judge for themselves. Any deletion has the same issue, especially speedy deletions. We trust admins to delete entire pages without discussion if they are purely vandalism, this is no different. Vandalism is by its very definition "purely disruptive." If we trust admins to recognize what is and is not vandalism then there is no problem with it being used this way. Yes, in many cases it could be argued that "a revert would suffice" but that doesn't mean that an admin taking the extra step and just deleting it is an abuse of the tool. Mandating that vandalism be kept in the page history purely in the interest of transparency obviously does not improve the encyclopedia, quite the opposite. The old saw "policies are descriptive not proscriptive" seems apt. If this has emerged as a practical application of RevDel I say let it be used this way, and modify policy if needed to allow for it rather than limit it.


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Pointillist (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) To an extent. This shouldn't be seen as carte blanche to RevDel anything we don't like or "normal" vandalism, but it should be at admin discretion to RevDel anything beyond "normal" vandalism that was done solely to disrupt. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah, I commonly find myself going "What did he type that needed more than a revert?" However, CSD G1/G2/G3/G10/G11 is not the same because the only content is worthless at best and needs to be removed, leaving an empty page. A sysop should just delete the page rather than blanking it and leaving empty pages just so people like myself can go "Oh, that was what he wanted to type." Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

View from S Marshall
While I have yet to see evidence that this facility is being misused, I propose that we clarify the guideline by saying "Do not use RevDel if a revert will suffice."


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) — S Marshall T/C 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) makes sense, as a minimum  DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) That would be a good addition to RD3 in any case. However, AFAICS from the earlier discussions at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion, disruptive edit summaries are a special case. I'd like to see a proposed text to handle it specifically. It might be better to have a distinct criterion for it rather than merging it into the interpretation of RD3. - Pointillist (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed.  Sandstein   21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * #Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC) changed my mind, see "another view from Beeblebrox. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Them From  Space  06:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Nice and short. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I support this in principal, however the issue here seems to be that people set different levels for what is and is not so egregious as to justify a revdel. That won't be fixed as easily. As I say below, if an admin goes overboard with revdel, it should be handled by talking to the admin one on one, in a case by case basis.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

View from MuZemike
(Note: I am basically defending my recent admin actions here) We have vandals right now are using edit summaries to cause disruption on Wikipedia. Slakr provided sufficient examples as to what how they are precisely accomplishing their goals. One can easily revert patently disruptive edits, but without Revision Deletion, we have no way to do this with patently disruptive edit summaries. Defending and protecting Wikipedia and its readers and editors should not be considered "overzeal" and is not inappropriate.

Leaving such edit summaries visible in the edit history discourages users and paints for potential newcomers the wrong picture of Wikipedia, as they would see it as an intimidating place in which trolls and blatant POV-pushers have free reign to do what they please. We cannot be rewarding such persistent vandals by disallowing sysops to rightly take away their disruption and recognition. Moreover, the GFDL and CC-BY-SA are not suicide pacts, and we should not be allowing them to hide behind our content licenses to make edits that are blatantly contrary to Wikipedia's (and the Wikimedia Foundation's) core beliefs and principles. –MuZemike 21:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) –MuZemike 21:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) -DBaK (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) – Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Rd232 talk 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) - DS (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Courcelles 02:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Well put. At least one of the cited revisions was one I deleted under the same circumstances as MuZemike and he saved me having to type out my own response, so thanks! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Nakon  03:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) — GorillaWarfare talk 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Sure, vandalism that appears to intentionally use edit summaries as the forum for vandalism should be revision-deleted, but since few readers look at the history anyway this does not apply to every run-of-the-mill "penis"/"lollol"/"urallgay" kind of vandal edit summary.  Sandstein   21:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 14)  Guoguo12  --Talk--  01:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Now that some light has been shed (see the talk page) on why the examples at the top were revdeleted I find myself in full agreement about this. Thoroughly removing vandalism is a good thing, and using revdel is actually more transparent than the old way of deleting the entire page and restoring it without the vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) FT2 (Talk 15:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Although for these two examples, I would have been happier if the edit summary only was revdeleted and not the content. This would have met MuzeMike's point and also allowed those curious what was removed to check it without abusing the "page history" facility.
 * 18) Fred Bauder There is stuff in the middle, not simple blanking or "poop" vandalism yet not involving something which would justify suppression, typically just ugly crap; nothing that adds to the value of information, basically of the "suck my cock" sort of edit which doesn't justify suppression but doesn't belong in the article history. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Subject to my view below. T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 21)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) when used on a very limited basis --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   17:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) When handling edit summaries, RevDel is necessary more frequently than it is when hanling revision texts or account names which edited. Porblematic user names can be handled by renaming the user (and even hiding the rename log, if absolutely necessary), problematic edits can usually be dealt with well by reverting with an appropriate revert summary, but edit summaries are irreperable except by RevDel. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

View from SarekOfVulcan
I'd like to remind people that when it comes to edit summaries, a revert won't solve the problem of disruption, so I feel the bar for RD3ing edit summaries needs to be significantly lower than for revision text. For example, I once revdeled a series of twenty edit summaries in a row that took up three rows each as "purely disruptive". After discussion, I reverted the deletion, but I still feel that the effect they have of flooding the contribution history was disruptive enough for RD3.


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) That is true. I mean, some may see success in seeing "edit summary removed" and struck out, but is that preferable to leaving the patently disruptive edit summary and revision on there? Perhaps that's another question we should answer. –MuZemike 22:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Rd232 talk 22:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -DS (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed, but not all vandalistic edit summaries are so disruptive that they need to be revision-deleted.  Sandstein   21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. My talk page is an example of this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse, obvious point here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) FT2 (Talk 19:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Sandstein. Jafeluv (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree RD3 is great for disruptive edit summaries that disrupt the contribution history. In these cases simple reversion does not help. However when it comes to mere disruptive edits to an article that don't significantly affect the contribution history, RevDel offers nothing more than simple reversion, other than reducing transparency. --Pontificalibus  (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

view from User:DGG
The only essential advantages of revision delete is the ability to delete a particular edit from the contents of a very highly-edited article, and to hide user names, or edit summaries, while keeping the contents of the edit. . When any of these three is necessary, there's no alternative for an ordinary admin, so it's a very good thing that we have it. An advantage that is not essential, but certainly convenient, is to delete a particular version quicker than by delete and restore. I really do not see the point otherwise of using it for ordinary vandalism, because a delete and partial restore does as well and hides it from exactly the same people and no more. It's not as if this gives an added measure of hiding, and the exact same people can do either route Its use just because the vandalism is bad is not a sufficient reason.  DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree. RevDel is not a tool that diminishes the occurances of vandalism nor does said vandalism diminish our pool of new editors.  I think many of us got into this gig because we did notice vandalism and learned how to fix it as part of the new experience.  Keegan (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Dpmuk
Although there may well be a problem with RD3 the bigger problem here is the lack of "accountability" (used very losely) when it comes to RevDel. For normal (page) deletions there are well defined procedures for appealing a deletion and this helps clarify the deletion process. Guidelines are never going to fully describe all situations and so something like DRV helps clarify the community consensus. Additionally as deletion of a page is a big and obvious step it is more likely to be appealed in the first place because someone notices it. On the other hand RevDel has no formal review procedures at all and appeals are less likely to be forthcoming as RevDels are not obvious (especially as the deletion log makes no reference to what revision the RevDel applies) and the editor in question is likely to be blocked anyway. This lack of review means it's impossible for non-admins to know whether we have a problem with RD3 as only admins can review the deletions (and even that seems to be occurring rarely at best). It's an established wikipedia idea that admins are not special and that community consensus means the whole community, not just admins, should have had the chance to comment which currently non-admins have no way of doing so. The community can never successfully never draw the line on when RevDel is acceptable using simple guidelines as they are open to interpretation - we need specific examples on which to comment. Ideas have been raised about having an examples page (see here) but nothing has come of it. Until we establish a way of accurately gauging community consensus, using actual deletions, RevDel is always going to be applied inconsistently and there is going to be no guarantee that it is being used as the community desires. As such changing the wording of RD3 will fix nothing as it does not solve the wider problem.


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Dpmuk (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Rd232 talk 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Minima  c  ( talk ) 16:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Timotheus Canens
Don't we have better things to do than trying to figure out whether something concededly disruptive is "hyper-disruptive" and worthy of revdel or "run-of-the-mill disruptive" and not revdel-able?


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) T. Canens (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  02:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) If we're not going to trust the admins, why the heck do we make RfA so painful. Assume basic competency on the part of admins, and if an individual admin goes overboard with a revdel or two, take it up with that admin on a one on one, case by case basis.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Smallman12q
Invoking RD3 under the guise of WP:DENY is a misuse of revision deletion. WP:CFRD states that "Users should consider whether simply reverting or ignoring would be sufficient in the circumstances". Increasingly, RD3 is being invoked where a simple revert would more than suffice. In articles where RD3 is used per WP:DENY...it fails to deter vandalism as the history of Lad, A Dog shows.

The excessive use of revision deletion detracts from the transparency of articles to non-admins and does little to hamper recognition. RD3 should not be used where reverting suffices.Smallman12q (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Smallman12q (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Jclemens
Based on the licensing/copyright discussions on the talk page, I propose the following clarification:


 * Revision Deletion should only be used to hide the username or IP of a contributor when:
 * The edit itself is also revision deleted (so no copyrightable material is kept without attribution), or
 * The username or IP removal is requested by the editor making the contribution.


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC) - does seem to be GFDL compliant to note this.
 * 3) Pointillist (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems obvious. Nakon  04:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Comment: It seems to me that removing a username without revision deleting the edit is a violation of Wikipedia licenses... Shouldn't, if the IP requests it, both the edit text and the username be hidden? Perhaps that's what you meant and I was misunderstanding. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Comment: We need to think carefully about the case where the revision is harmless (or its reversion measns we don't need to redact the revision text) but the username is a problem. In such cases there is a tension between minimism (only redact material which needs it) v. attribution (don't keep content unless attributed to its author). CC-by-SA 3.0 doesn't exclude "fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations" so we may have some flexibility here, but this aspect needs specific focus. FT2 (Talk 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - When people create usernames so grossly improper that they have to be RevDel'ed, they ALWAYS vandalize or create attack pages and end up getting rolled back. an IP address isn't RevDel'ed unless it is a contributor editing while accidentally logged out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

View from Reaper Eternal
Why don't we allow the admins to use good judgment in applying RD3 RevDel rather than making a massive collection of regulations to determine the exact "purely disruptive" edits in which an admin can use RevDel? I violated the CSD policy on one new howto article I found by blanking it and tagging it with a generic speedy tag. Howto articles, according to policy, go to AfD rather than CSD. However, the article was instructions on hacking Xbox Live accounts. A sysop should be able to RevDel such material without violating policy if, for example, it was posted to the talk page of some user.
 * EDIT: Here is an example of material that is intentionally a purely disruptive use of edit summmaries . Would this have been covered by any proposed regulations?


 * Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC) (note - agree that list in EDIT section was appropriate use of revdel)
 * 3) If we're not going to trust the admins, why the heck do we make RfA so painful. Assume basic competency on the part of admins, and if an individual admin goes overboard with a revdel or two, take it up with that admin on a one on one, case by case basis.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)