Wikipedia talk:Viewing deleted articles/Archived poll

This poll is now closed. Please do not vote. The final tally was:


 * Total Yes votes: 38
 * Free access: 13
 * Logged-in users: 20
 * Approved users: 6
 * No: 45

The voting and discussion are preserved below as a record.

Poll (open since November 2 2004)
Should non-admins be given access to view deleted articles (except those that Wikipedia is legally required to remove)?

Tally:
 * Total Yes votes: 38
 * Free access: 13
 * Logged-in users: 20
 * Approved users: 6
 * No: 45

Yes, anyone should have access to these articles

 * 1) I don't see why anyone shouldn't, what is there to hide? Sarge Baldy 00:20, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * If anyone is allowed to view deleted articles, how will deleted articles be different from others? --Hemanshu 09:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, because they're deleted. As a sysop don't you find any difference between deleted articles and live ones? Because I certainly do. Primarily the reason I want these shown is because I believe there's a fair number of instances of sysops speedily deleting articles against procedure, and I think this is a great way to make such abuse come to light. And I don't see any logical reason to restrict the ability to logged-in users. Hence I vote in this heading. Sarge Baldy 09:17, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * An interesting assertion Sarge. But curiously wrong, as a quick trawl through the deletion log will quickly reveal. Sjc 09:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've had my own article deleted not once or twice but three times before I could convince the other admin to cease and instead list on VfD. I believe it is a problem. Sarge Baldy 09:28, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, and the article was? Sjc 09:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see that that matters, the article did not qualify as speedy-deletable material by any single criteria as the other sysop finally admitted, and was deleted on VfD with a somewhat suspicious "consensus" of about 70%. You cite the deletion log as evidence that no such abuse occurs, though a glimpse through it reveals articles (such as Elliott berry) which does not qualify for speedy deletion under the established guidelines, despite it obviously being vanity. I find allowing users to look at deleted edits a strong safeguard against any possible such corruption by the administration. Sarge Baldy 09:50, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * A couple of points: I didn't actually say it never happens, but I would say that the number of entries which cross the borderline from Speedy Delete territory into the should have been VfDed are few and far between. The item you cited should probably not have been speedied despite the tediousness of the VfD process, whereupon it would have been 99.99% recurring certain voted for deletion, net result being the same without the concomitant bs. Policy is, as you will discover, precisely that, but you have to be creative sometimes in your interpretation of it; 99 times out a hundred an admin will speedy something as obviously vanity as that and with good reason: its going nowhere. The downside of this is that occasionally mistakes will be made, but I would contend that these are very rare exceptions. Frankly, I suggest that if you are that concerned you put yourself up for adminship. It is a largely thankless task, and the power cabal which you seem to think exists frankly doesn't, as you will discover in short order. The obvious errors and issues where you have problems with a particular admin can be resolved quickly by appealing to other admins for an opinion. I am usually good for an oppositional viewpoint to 99% of the other admins :) Sjc 10:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been an admin for over half a year, I just find it much more efficient to allow the entire community to look over these matters. Sarge Baldy 17:29, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * You see? I knew this was the reason all along -- it's just an attempt to make an end run around the VfD and speedy delete processes, just to cause more divisiveness.  RickK 19:50, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) If and only if a  flag is set. If this flag is not, it should be only for logged in users. Gerritholl 19:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I see no difference between vandalising an existing article with unappropriate data and creating a new article with unappropriate data. As long as vandalism still appears in existing articles' history, I see no reason to hide deleted articles. In fact, to me, a deleted article is not very different from an article whose current version is empty. Sam Hocevar 20:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) This would make VfD seem much less threatening.  --[[User:Eequor| &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ]]] 01:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) See no reason why not. --Rebroad 21:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Assuming that it's similar to the current system for admins (e.g. "Wikipedia has no page on Foo. View X deleted edits?"). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) No reason why not. There can be many special cases, it's true, but as long as the articles are visible to admins, they can (and ought to) be made visible to others as well. Those, who vote "No", do not really seem to understand the purpose of deletion. It's not erasing something from the face of the Earth, it's more like saying "this should not be included in our encyclopedia". Making deleted pages available doesn't contradict this purpose - there can be material on Wikipedia site, which is part of the Wikipedia project, but not a part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia (such as this page, for example). Having access to deleted pages is nice to have, does no real harm (claims below about trolls are just empty claims), so it should be made available. Paranoid 23:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Articles that Wikipedia is "legally required to remove" are explicitly excluded from the scope of this poll (go on, read the question again). In the case of deleted articles whose deletion was not forced by legal requirements, I see no reason to restrict access.  &mdash;AlanBarrett 10:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Why hide them? If everything is above board, why would anyone fear it?Dr Zen 11:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the min. one week after deletion. Masterhomer 21:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Dittaeva 18:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) The bellman 11:07, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC) But i think that thier needs to be some way of completely and forever deleating copyvio stuff.
 * 3) Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) They should be viewable, but not editable or restorable. They should NOT be open to the mirrors, however, or indexed via Google or any other search engine. I'll leave this up to the devs to work that out.

Yes, but only logged in users

 * 1) Scott Burley 08:57, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Netoholic @ 08:57, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC) -- Prefer that only those that have specifically requested it be given access.
 * 3) Slowking Man 09:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *drew 09:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) What Netoholic said. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 09:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) There's no reason this is legal for admins to see but not legal for non-admins to see. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I would supported "but only users who specifically asked for it", but "approved" is too strong for something so mundane. Also, what would be the approval criteria? Gady 14:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Tmh 14:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Comrade Tassadar 10:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I support this for ability for logged in users.  GRider 21:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Logged-in users ought to be able to view deleted articles. Trevor Caira 20:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) YES. But only:
 * With a prominent notice stating that the article is deleted;
 * Not accessible to search engines/mirrors;
 * Set through an option in the preferences;
 * Not being able to edit the article until it is undeleted. Vacuum | tcw 17:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes with an exception for copyvios. the reason I strongly support this is that very often articles are taken to VfD and that's when we find out for the first time that it's a recreation of a previously deleted article and thus could have been speedied. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed. If the information is already retained, there is no reason why deletion can't effectively move an article to a different, protected, namespace.  This would make vfd less harmful, but more importantly would make vfu much more transparant and fair.  --L33tminion | (talk) 22:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps only the raw text should be availible. This will allow deltetion to still kill link spam.  --L33tminion | (talk) 22:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) SimonP 20:59, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC), but I think some sort of time restriction would be appropriate.  See also Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD
 * 3) Yes. They should not, however, be indexed by Google or available to non-users. Additionally, users should have the option of turning on and off a sort of "view deleted articles" feature. EventHorizon 06:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Admins are simply regular editors endowed by the community with extra responsibilities. Allowing all users to see deleted pages would give the process a lot more transparency, and the legal issues surrounding allowing admins to view deleted pages are similar to the legal issues surrounding allowing normal editors to view deleted pages. Allowing it only to registered users would fix the "free wikihosting" and "partisan groups linking to their POV pages" problems. Yelyos 11:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Wolfman 04:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Viewable but not editable. And we don't need to keep deleted files indefinitely. --ZayZayEM 02:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only users specifically approved by the community

 * 1) [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 18:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) squash 10:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) A person can sign up for a Wikipedia account in literally a few seconds, so there is no point of "Yes, but only logged in users"... So because I change my vote, and a person who is a Wikipedian and wishes to see the 'stuff' can request on a page to get that thing enabled... you know what I mean...
 * 3) Improv 20:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Articles deleted by VfD, instead of copyvio, should, IMO, be available to people running inclusive mirror sites (like Anthony) or for other people who are especially concerned about policy and VfD/VfU. Perhaps a minimum time on Wikipedia such as a year should be in place, plus a good reason. --Improv 20:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A year? By that time you are likely to be an administrator... Gady 13:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been on wikipedia for about two years, and am not an administrator. It happens. --Improv 22:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The only reasoning against allowing the viewing of deleted articles is reasoning that applies only to their free access. I see no reason we shouldn't allow specific users to view deleted articles. Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * could you please explain when there would be a user who could get "approved by the community" but couldn't be an administrator; the user must be a trusted person who will not go publishing material which has been deleted because it is harmful. Wouldn't it be better just to say: "a need for access to deleted material is a reason to become an administrator".  Wikipedia would need a separate "become an approved person process" which would be just like becoming an administrator.  If you proposed takikng away access to deleted pages from administrators then this might make sense. Mozzerati 18:12, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC) (not around long enough to be an admin, but still happier with the restriction in place).
 * The new version of MediaWiki has permission settings for this, so doing this should be a snap. We actually even have a tool for this. The decision doesn't necessarily have to be made democratically. Jimbo or the Board or the Arbcom could decide this. Johnleemk | Talk 18:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Only just noticed this page. We already have one "category of users specifically approved by the community" known as administrators - why should another be a problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) J3ff 23:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No

 * 1) RickK 09:16, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC).  Not only is this an attempt by the inclusionists to make an end-run around the VfD process, it also violates copyright laws by making deleted copyright violations visible.
 * But it doesn't break copyright laws by letting sysops look at such information? Sarge Baldy 09:18, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can only think of one time I looked at a deleted page where someone queried whether it should have been VfDed rather than Speedy Delete. Most admins will probably say something similar imo, we have other stuff to do.Sjc 09:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between allowing sysops to see deleted copyvios for administrative purposes and allowing anybody to see it (even just logged in users) for whatever reason they want to see it. RickK 19:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * What about allowing any editor to see it for administrative purposes? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * having specific access controls which only allow those "inside" a project to view something probably changes the action from "publication" to simple "viewing". This is likely to provide a legal differents; but then again INAL. Mozzerati 20:19, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * All but the first option provides for access controls. Under option 2 the access is controlled to only logged in users.  Under option 3 it is provided only for users who specifically request the privilege. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Simple (automatically approved) request and / or automatic access (after login) is not enough. there should be a clear sign of having seen and agreed to follow the rules of the project and that the project believes that you will follow process.  The RfA process is good since it doesn't always succeed and the people have to at least pretend that they are here to help the project and not just to get illegal access to materials they shouldn't have.  Is there anyone who couldn't pass the RfA process who you believe should have access to the old pages.  If there was someone who could be trusted with project "secrets" but couldn't be trusted to administrate then option 3 might make sense in their case.   Personally, I think that there can't be such a person.  Mozzerati 19:26, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * I can't pass the RfA process and I believe I should have access to the old pages. That's the whole reason I started this page. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. This will encourage more specious vandalism since the contents will be perpetually available. Sjc 09:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I changed my mind, I vote no. - Vague Rant 09:36, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non visible for obvious legal reasons. In most extreme cases, we even permanently delete them from the database. But this require additional work from our already overworked developers. Any change of policy making all deleted articles visible to any loggued in editor, or even to anyone, will require us to treat each article after the other, to check if these should be permanently deleted or not. This strike me as absolutely inefficient (both for those trying to decipher which to permanently delete and which not, and for all developers asked to do the job afterwards), prone to possibly dramatic error, and more conflicts in the end. So, this is simply not an option. Now, I understand (more than you could guess :-)) that this might be problematic for those of you non admin, worried by abusive action by deletionist sysops :-) I invite those either to ask to be sysop if they can (or to negociate with developers so that a special new status be created), or to use request for undeletion, or to ask any trusted sysop to give them the content of the deleted article in case of request to check potential abusive deletion. And I will personally help if needed. We can't accept to face legal issues because of internal poor management. If there are problems with sysop action, if some editors do not trust a sysop, then act to unsysop that person, or at least to have him change his behavior. But do not weaken the physical structure to fix a human problem. Fix the human problem rather. user:Anthere
 * I invite those either to ask to be sysop if they can Already done that. (or to negociate with developers so that a special new status be created) This is the purpose of the "Yes, but only users specifically approved by the community" vote above.  We already have a tool to allow approved users to view deleted articles.  All it needs is community approval to use the tool.  or to use request for undeletion  I've been blocked for using request for undeletion in the past.  or to ask any trusted sysop to give them the content of the deleted article in case of request to check potential abusive deletion.  Are you volunteering to do this for me? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. user:Anthere
 * No, for the reasons I already gave on the Village pump (now at Wikipedia talk:Viewing deleted articles). Angela. 12:24, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with Netoholic. Mackensen (talk) 09:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) - Changed my mind based on Angela's comment.
 * 2) No. Lupo 12:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly oppose. 1) The copyright situation is thorny enough as it is. 2) Trolls would be able to permanently view their trolling, hence build upon it and attract new trolls. This effect is visible on sites like Slashdot, where comments get not deleted but filtered -- the effect is that a troll community can grow and flourish.--Eloquence*
 * I don't see how your point is applicable to allowing users specifically approved by the community to see deleted articles. Trolls wouldn't see it, only a few non-admins who specifically request the privilege and are granted it.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Vandals are already able to permanently view their vandalism. See any anonymous edit on User:Grunt for example. In fact, I suppose that they will vandalise more and more existing articles instead of creating new pages for exactly that reason. Sam Hocevar 21:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not - it would make deletion meaningless.   &mdash; Dan | Talk 20:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Rdsmith4. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:06, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree, it would make deletion a much less serious action. Helixblue 20:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) There's a reason some things are deleted.  Why the heck would we want to bring them back? --Sponge! 20:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) See above. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No: there should be some clear restriction on access. The current limit to admins may not be tight enough, but it is better than nothing.  Mozzerati 20:21, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 20:50, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Well then, that's not deletion, is it? --bdesham 20:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is already not deletion. The proposal only suggests that people other than admins may want to have a look at deleted content as well. I do not know the statistics on en:, but on fr: half the vandalism and copyright violations is not done on new articles, hence still visible. While I agree that copyright violation is a problem, keeping the history of deleted pages can have a lot of useful purposes: better spotting of vandal IPs, knowledge of why the page was removed, knowledge of the deleted content for comparison purposes. Sam Hocevar 22:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that it never was truly "deletion", since the data was not removed and sysops could still view it. As for spotting vandals' IPs&mdash;isn't it true that sysops are the only ones who really need to know that anyway?  They're the ones doing the blocking, so it doesn't seem all that necessary for anyone else to be able to access that data.  Dunno... I think it would be sufficient if there were simply a way for non-sysops to view deleted pages upon request&mdash;as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any great need for the general public to see pages that Wikipedians deemed should be deleted. --bdesham 03:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The whole point of this is to allow non-sysops to view deleted pages upon request. You have voted that no, non-sysops should not be allowed to view deleted pages upon request. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * By "upon request", I meant that there should be a page&mdash;something like "Wikipedia:Requests to view deleted articles"&mdash;where users can go to ask admins to retrieve the contents of a deleted page for them. I wasn't referring to an automated system (which is what I believe is being proposed here; please correct me if I'm wrong). --bdesham 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I see. What exactly is the problem with automating it?  Would you object if I convinced an admin to automate it for me? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) silsor 21:25, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Ambi 00:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) This makes no sense. Andre ( talk )A| 08:51, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) no (i am not an admin, btw). clarkk 11:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) No. They're not deleted if they can be viewed. Indeed, they enjoy special protection. jguk 18:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) No.  Agreeing with Angela's points on Wikipedia talk:Viewing deleted articles, and with Anthere.  Joyous 20:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) No. Agree with Angela's points. -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 21:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) No. This simply contradicts the purpose of deletion. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 21:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) No. Copyright problems, credibility problems. Hell, wikipedia would be a blog if we allow this: a free message board people's rants and opinions with the minor step of logging in. I think instead we should do a better job of giving non-copyrightvios to McFly.com or whoever else wants them. Cool Hand  Luke  22:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I'll vote no for now, because of copyvio issues. Another thing that could be done is to create two kinds of delete actions: one for copyvios, which would make the article or file invisible, and another for nonsense. arj 20:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) No. Deletion means that material has been deemed unsuitable to be published under the rubric of Wikipedia. That decision should be made only for good reasons; but when made, it should stick. --FOo 03:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Not only no, but hell no! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) No.  Angela makes some very good points.  BTW, this poll has been open for over a month.  Isn't it time to close it?  SWAdair | Talk  05:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, wouldn't it be (even more) illegal with regards to copyvios? Dori | Talk 00:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * The answer is in the question you are answering:  Should non-admins be given access to view deleted articles (except those that Wikipedia is legally required to remove)? Sam Hocevar 00:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Deleted items are deleted, and should appear so to non-admin. Anythin else would break a perfectly good level of encapsulation. -- ClockworkSoul 21:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Otherwise deletion would be pointless. --David Iberri | Talk 23:25, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) No. If anyone can see deleted pages, what's the point in deleting? If anyone objects to the deletion policy, then try to fix it. This suggestion is like throwing out the baby with the water, so to speak. There are reasons for deleting articles and hiding them from non-admins' eyes. Free wikihosting, anyone?--Jill St. Crux 00:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) No If a page gets deleted and had worthwhile content then we've failed to function as a Wikipedia. Roleypolinde 00:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) No. --Conti|&#9993; 00:41, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) No. Cranks, kooks, spammers and vanity page creators will still be able to link to their WP articles; they'll just be linking to a "deleted" yet viewable article rather than a live one. -Sean Curtin 06:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not an issue for spammers, Google and Co. wouldn't spider the deleted pages the same way they don't spider pages in history. Certainly an issue for vanity pages. --Eean 18:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. See above.  --Carnildo 06:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. --FLafaire 18:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) No. What part of "deleted" is so difficult to understand? -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 18:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Adam Bishop 18:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) No. --Eean 18:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) No. "Wir müssen die Artikeln ausrotten!", or something like that &mdash; deleting should mean deleting. --kooo 18:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) No. I'm amazed to learn that when an article is deleted, it's not really deleted but only hidden away somewhere. I would require that deleted articles be totally and irreversably deleted. Adam 11:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) No. I agree with Adam - deletion should mean permanent deletion. PMA 11:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely not. Mike H 02:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)