Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Miscellaneous/Make deleted edits visible to their author

Make deleted edits visible to their author

  • Problem: Make the deleted edits visible to its author. Deleted edits are restricted to admins and checkusers. I think that a user should be able to see his/her deleted edits not of others.
  • Who would benefit: All users who would like to see their deleted edits
  • Proposed solution: Just make the edits visible to their authors.
  • More comments: All above.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Empire AS (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There should be some security problems, but at least I would like to see titles of deleted pages I had edited - useful eg in commons - according to name I can search it in log and maybe made new upload with correct licence. JAn Dudík (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that there would be no problems regarding security. A user should be able to see only his/her edits, not of others. So, in future, he/she might stop the increase in his deleted edits. Empire AS (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. This will let people just posting their deleted spam / defamatory posts / vandalisms/ hoaxs etc more easier w/o the need to keep it somewhere else. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support any version of this proposal that can provide me with a *minimum* of information about *which* of my edits were deleted (I agree here with JAn Dudík's comment). If I'm not mistaken, as it currently stands we can only find info about deleted pages but not deleted edits. I just need some kind of info for reference/tracking purposes, especially in order to understand what was deleted and *why* so that I don't repeat my mistakes again (I agree here with Empire AS's comment). And for added safety allow this function/privilege only to the authors of the deleted edits who are also *Extended-Confirmed* users. Cordially, History DMZ (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Martinkunev: Well you shouldn't be able to view deleted edits right now, you do not have admin rights on any Wikimedia wikis. The deleted edits here refer to the content of deleted pages and revisions, not text simply removed from the page and publicly visible on the history page. H78c67c (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Editors wouldn't use these deleted edits to repost their 'deleted spam / defamatory posts / vandalisms/ hoaxs etc more easier' but they'll stop making such edits after knowing to them, I guess. I may tell an incident here that in the beginning when I was too new, I used Xtools to see my edits + the no. of deleted edits. However, the number of deleted edits was increasing day by day and I didn't even knew how or why it was happening. Therefore, I reached an admin who told me that most of my deleted edits are from my sandboxes. Then I understood my mistake that I didn't move the sandboxes to the articles but rather used copy-paste method and tagged sandboxes with G7. However, after knowing, I controlled the increase in my deleted edits by moving them. If I really knew this before (that was possible if I was able to see my deleted edits), then I wouldn't have big no. of deleted edits. Besides this, deleted edits would also help users to understand what sort and type of their content was deleted and why so happened. They would be able not to repeat such mistakes in future, and such content (like deleted spam / defamatory posts / vandalisms/ hoaxs etc) wouldn't be uploaded anymore. The backlog of WP:REFUND would also decrease. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading the opposing comments I'd just like to make a point: spammers could always have a copy of what they published, whether this feature is available or not. H78c67c (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They could, H78c67c. But we don't need to help them, or to make it unnecessary to keep a copy. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean you'd like the developers to develop :-

-- Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are lists of pages we created (which still exist). That sort of format would work, but instead it might show edits we made to pages which have now been deleted. To address other editors' concerns, we might not want to make the text available, just the editor, timestamp and edit summary (unless revdeled, of course). The proposal wouldn't give me access to anything secret: I can now download my contribution history daily and save it locally in case a page gets deleted, but the suggested change would be more convenient for me and avoid bothering the server by regularly downloading data I'll never read. Certes (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I echo Certes here, the above format suggested by Cabayi (if applied to deleted *edits*) could work. It would include the timestamp, page title, and edit summary. But it's missing the log link with the admin's reason for deletion (see XTools example below, next to my vote). Cordially, History DMZ (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cabayi: Yes, something like that, but I will see exactly this and you this. JAn Dudík (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Exposing deleted edit content needs to be on a per-edit basis, set by an administrator, and only if the request is in accordance with a "what admins are allowed to let contributors see" per-project policy. I think the API already allows you to see certain meta-content of deleted edits, including who made them, how big the edit was, and the timestamp on the edit, tags, but not the edit summary or content. Making it easier to see this already-accessible content, perhaps via a gadget or external tool, would be a good thing. Davidwr/talk 16:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  •   It is doubtful I am unsure whether it is a good idea or not. On one hand you allow them to learn why it was deleted. On the other hand, edits only get deleted if they're offensively bad from what I have seen, so if they can review their edits, they can just copy that and slap that back into the article on a new revision and the admins will have to delete that edit again. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarioSuperstar77: I don't think that it would happen anymore. As I can guess, an editor would use deleted edits to stop them from happening in future. Therefore, they would not repeat such edits anymore and admins would've no need to delete that edits again when they wouldn't be even made. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support. At least, let us see the same info we already see about deleted pages, like Jimbo Wales example. History DMZ (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Chaddy (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Trang Oul (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   It is doubtful towards   Oppose In my experience, many, very many editors would use this to immedately restore the edit by pasting their edit back into the live edit box (especially trolls and PR folks who know what they are doing. If you do decide to implement this, add a checkbox "Allow the user to see this edit", though I dont see how edits that are revision deleted would improve the encyclopedia at all, since revision deletion is often used for a reason. (including by these guys) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: According to your view point it would happen. But as I see and can guess, I don't agree with you. Deleted edits visibility may help users to stop rehappening them and admins working here may help there in any other field of encyclopedia instead of deleting revisions that were happening due to not knowing the reason of their deletion. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak oppose The proposal seems unclear to me - I can always go to history and see the edits. I don't see a problem that this solves. Martinkunev (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martinkunev: the proposal isn't about live edits. It is about that edits that are deleted known as 'deleted edits' only visible to admins checkusers, oversighters etc but not to even their authors. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support of visible titles, not content JAn Dudík (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support , even if just the page title and edit summary without text. Certes (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose I just can't see the point. And this is just the tool mass-spammers are waiting for, so nope, not a very good idea. --Braveheidi (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose, in the very rare instance where this wouldn't be abused, the user can just ask an admin to tell them what happened. Abductive (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support This makes sense. I may be more worried about the risk of account theft and expect it to have a validity period. YFdyh000 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support for this one. This would reduce workload on WP:REFUND (especially on zhwiki). H78c67c (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose on the grounds that this is better discussed as an issue of community consensus, not a feature request. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong support per the proposal made by me. Empire AS (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Jjkorff (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Sdkb. --Ján Kepler (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per the opposers! Em-mustapha User | talk 16:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose - we don't need to provide assistance to spammers. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose NMaia (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose Nothing like allowing our COI spammers and expletive flinging vandals to copy and paste their deleted content so they can spam it back even faster. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose per CaptainEek. Possibly (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Kisnaak (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Edits are deleted for a reason. This just opens it up for easy "undo". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK   ▎enWiki 22:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support   Oppose test JonathanLa (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose This should be decided by the communities themselves. I can think of several negative consequences. SarahSV talk 04:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  16:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Make the titles visible, oppose making content visible. It provides clear feedback to good faith editors, while bad faith editors...will eventually be blocked anyways. Shushugah (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support Only titles, per JAn Dudík. — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support I've seen it where a new user creates incomplete article, it gets deleted next day, and the admins refuse to reinstate or move it to draft. This just feeds some of the admins egos and puts off new users. Wolfmartyn (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Golmore (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Kku (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support conditionally. I am active in copyright issues but not active in vandalism reversion. Much of the opposition relates to vandalism issues. Speaking about copyright issues, it is quite common that I identify what appears to be a copyright violation, then do a revision deletion to hide the material, per policy. It is not uncommon (dozens of times each year) that the editor will challenge the claim, believing that it is not a copyright violation. However, because they can no longer see the material, that makes it difficult to discuss. My usual procedure is to undo the revision deletion, give them time to review the material possibly copy at off-line for further review, then asked them to let me know when they are done and then redo the revision deletion (obviously only if they are wrong, which they almost always are). This is a rather tedious sequence of events. If the material remained not visible to all editors except the editor who added it, then they could check the material, confirm that it actually is a copyright violation or enter into a discussion with me if they disagree. Much simpler. I don't know whether it's feasible but the obvious refinement to this feature request would be to allow viewing by the editor in the case of a revision deletion for copyright reasons, but not for vandalism reasons. If that's not feasible, then we have to think through whether the harm and allowing vandals to see the edit outweighs the benefit to allowing copyright violators to see the edit.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose while it could be educational for nice users, it would facilitate the not-nice-at-all users aka vandals Shenme (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Oh, that would be awesome! If there are concerns about vandals, just turn it off for users who are not autoconfirmed. Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Why? USI2020 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Nachtbold (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]