In which Tom Morris reveals a secret to Mr Fezziwig Options

[carbuncle]

Unlike most WP editors, admins can view deleted contributions. The suggestion that non-admins should be able to view deleted edits was shut down by Mike Godwin. (This was before it was possible to "oversight" edits, so perhaps someone needs to raise the question again, though I suspect a good number of admins would be unwilling to lose any part of their special status just on principle.) It isn't completely clear how deleted contributions are meant to be handled. Some admins will provide one's own deleted contributions upon request. It is unlikely that admins would provide other editor's deleted contributions, but I am not sure if there is any policy that covers this.

Having said that, I doubt that admins are meant to go trawling through the deleted contributions of editors who have been associated with a particular company, and then post the details on their blog.

[thekohser]

Again, the double standard rules the day at Wikipedia.

[Doc glasgow]

Unlike most WP editors, admins can view deleted contributions. The suggestion that non-admins should be able to view deleted edits was shut down by Mike Godwin. (This was before it was possible to "oversight" edits, so perhaps someone needs to raise the question again, though I suspect a good number of admins would be unwilling to lose any part of their special status just on principle.) It isn't completely clear how deleted contributions are meant to be handled. Some admins will provide one's own deleted contributions upon request. It is unlikely that admins would provide other editor's deleted contributions, but I am not sure if there is any policy that covers this.

Having said that, I doubt that admins are meant to go trawling through the deleted contributions of editors who have been associated with a particular company, and then post the details on their blog.

Wider access to deleted material, or admins publishing it, has to be one enormous NO NO.

Everyking was desysopped for threatening to do what Tom has just done.

There are really good reasons for this. Lots of things are deleted, attacks, slandars, or things that might or might not be. Once deleted material is "available", then the need to monitor what is there, and remove via oversight what is bad will skyrocket. Once you do that, you'll need 40 more overseers - making that form of deletion much less secure (because it will be read by many). But one any attack page is oversighted, the demands for more admins to be able to read oversighted material for transparency will increase.

You'll end up with wider access to the oversighted edits, and demands that some edits are so bad that they need removed from the view of the now larger ranks of overseers.

If removed material is safe to be seen by joe public then it should be left in the history. Deleted material is limited to admins, and really bad stuff limited to a dozen overseers and staff. There is wisdom in that.

The only argument I'd see would be to give the ability to see deleted edits to very longstanding editors who are not admins.

Tom needs to remove that material.

[SB_Johnny]

Wider access to deleted material, or admins publishing it, has to be one enormous NO NO.

It really depends on the material... the stuff that's not libel and was deleted because it's "unencyclopedic" is generally harmless (such as the infamous "list of fictional expletives").

[Doc glasgow]

Wider access to deleted material, or admins publishing it, has to be one enormous NO NO.

It really depends on the material... the stuff that's not libel and was deleted because it's "unencyclopedic" is generally harmless (such as the infamous "list of fictional expletives").

Quite, but who makes that call?

If stuff is undeleted, that decision is logged, reviewable and accountable. If admins blog then there is no such control.

Or should all stuff not suitable for blogging now be oversighted?

In any case, deleted edits are not a privileged archive for admins to draw from for their own personal amusement. You have access in order to review deletions and make Wikipedia work - nothing more.

[lilburne]

The thought occurs that one could simply blog over-sighed material. It doesn't have to be the over-sighted material one just has to say it is.

Just a thought.

[Doc glasgow]

The thought occurs that one could simply blog over-sighed material. It doesn't have to be the over-sighted material one just has to say it is.

Just a thought.

Yes, and I could also blog about Jimbo's secret e-mails to me - in which he admits being an agent of darkness intent on world domination. If you are willing to lie, and refuse any calls for verification, there's not limits to what you can do.

[Eppur si muove]

Wider access to deleted material, or admins publishing it, has to be one enormous NO NO.

It really depends on the material... the stuff that's not libel and was deleted because it's "unencyclopedic" is generally harmless (such as the infamous "list of fictional expletives").

Quite, but who makes that call?

If stuff is undeleted, that decision is logged, reviewable and accountable. If admins blog then there is no such control.

Or should all stuff not suitable for blogging now be oversighted?

In any case, deleted edits are not a privileged archive for admins to draw from for their own personal amusement. You have access in order to review deletions and make Wikipedia work - nothing more.

The problem is that people who choose to stand for admin are not the most trustworthy category of users. The likes of Gerda Arendt (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a mature adult who creates articles on mature adult subjects, has over half of her edits in article space and a large chunk of the rest in her user space where she drafts some stuff, is far more trustworthy than the ephebocrats who get voted in as admins or even arbs.

Therefore the legal department's wariness of any extension to who can look at deleted material rather misses the point. The category of 40+ year olds who have never stood for admin, have been on Wikipedia for 3+years, have a clean block record and have created featured/good content on serious subject will contain a higher proportion of trustworthy custodians of confidential information than the category of admins.

[EricBarbour]

This post has been removed at the request of fellow Wikipedia administrators who are concerned about revealing deleted information. Personally, I disagree with this, and think that when it comes to a major scandal like Bell Pottinger, the public have a right to know as much as possible, so long as it doesn’t breach confidentiality. Until there is community consensus on the appropriateness of such publication, I have removed this post.

[lilburne]

The thought occurs that one could simply blog over-sighed material. It doesn't have to be the over-sighted material one just has to say it is.

Just a thought.

Yes, and I could also blog about Jimbo's secret e-mails to me - in which he admits being an agent of darkness intent on world domination. If you are willing to lie, and refuse any calls for verification, there's not limits to what you can do.

Payback can be a bitch. Most times people don't want confirmation anyway, take the SOPA thing, all manner of crap posted and repeated none of the repeaters or posters actually confirmed any of it.