Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted

I see a number of people, not noticing the instructions, are entering opposes--could someone consider moving them to some appropriate place. Alternatively, since in most polls here one can vote for everything one would actually support, not just the favored position, perhaps the instructions should be changed. DGG (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I put this poll together in a couple of hours over two days, so I apologize if there is anything confusing. The Opposes should be moved as they confuse the number of votes (I can't do that right now as I'm on my phone). I am hoping that, worst case secenerio, we will total the number of total support some option vs. oppose all to get an idea of if the community should continue pursuing this. For this reason, more than one vote for everyone would lead to a lot of confusion. The few who didn't read the rules can be figured out, based on which they voted for first. I am planning on trying to get a sitenotice for this, and hopefully a lot more people to vote (as opposed to just those who watch noticeboards). Hence the "please don't respond to comments here" line, it'll get huge. I'm not very well-versed in polls here; I based this one on a recent poll on Commons. But if the rules are too confusing, we should change them soon before the poll's too old. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  23:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted history
I'm not sure where to put this in the existing straw poll, but I think we should also consider (at the very least) the ability to see the history page itself. This could be independent of the actual content being seen, and possibly even the edit summaries. For people who only need a list of contributors for GFDL reasons, this could really help out a lot. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that technically possible?--chaser - t 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, this can be handled by just asking an admin. It wouldn't be terribly difficult.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean. Is it technically possible to write an extension such that anyone can see only the history of contributors to a deleted page? Given that some revisions are deleted due to edit summaries with libel or personal info in them (and no this doesn't always get oversighted), letting autoconfirmed users see deleted article history would only be appropriate if they can't see the content itself or the edit-summaries.--chaser - t 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "For people who only need a list of contributors for GFDL reasons" - To do what? The only time you'd need the contributor history is if you were recreating the article using content from the deleted version. Mr.Z-man 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. This is a non-starter.--chaser - t 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have we forgotten that Wikipedia exists so that other people can reuse our content? I'm talking about things like TV characters, which we commonly transwiki over to external wikis. Very often there are external wikis that don't import a full history, but instead say "see here for a full list of contribs..". We might delete that on Wikipedia's side, not knowing that the content was still being used somewhere else. This way it wouldn't matter, and everybody wins. It would also allow edit counts to remain more accurate. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional log of deleted page views
One thing that might make this work better (especially if deleted viewing were a new user-right type, or if we made a Custodian class), would be a log of what pages had their deleted edits viewed, by whom, and when. Such a log would need to be only visible to admins. Even if the proposals here are not accepted, this will possibly help deal with problems of rogue admins leaking deleted material. Thoughts? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When is this poll going to end?
I looked but could not find anything about when this poll is set to end. Any ideas? Cirt (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is currently scheduled to end 23:59 UTC, 17 October 2008 (it's at the end of the first "Poll" section). But based on the official legal opinion of the Foundation's General Counsel, the poll results are likely moot. — Satori Son 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and the fact that even aside from Mike's comment the general consensus is clearly against any variation of this. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections then to closing this early and marking as rejected? It seems to me this has both been resoundingly rejected by the community and effectively blocked at the Foundation level.  I don't see any particular point in keeping it open.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection here. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and archived the whole thing as an uninvolved editor, cquoting Mike Godwin at the top. It seems a fairly cut-and-dried case, with both the Community and the Foundation in agreement as to its inadvisability. Happy‑melon 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Debating and voting community wide issues with a few dozen people is wrong in the first place. Attack or copyright-violation parts aside, no there may not be any harm with keeping unreferenced pages in hidden state, until some editors will reference and revive them. Mike Godwin is utterly wrong in his own imaginative statement. Kasaalan (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)