Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Proposal for enabling RevisionDelete on Meta

The following discussion is closed.

The software isn't ready. When it is, it will be enabled.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as we all know, Meta is a good testing ground for extensions and features which we would like to slowly introduce to other wikis more specifically, the bigger wikis. Recently we have had success with Central Authentication and Global rights and i think its about time we tested revision delete on meta (who knows, it may be the next big thing to hit wikimedia!! :p ).

What it does (from

With that page you can change the visibility of a revision:

  • Hide revision text
  • Hide edit comment
  • Hide editor's username/IP

Or change the visibility of a log entry:

  • Hide action and target
  • Hide action comment
  • Hide editor's username/IP

Deleted revisions and events will still appear in the page history and logs, but parts of their content will be inaccessible to the public. A group of oversight users can also be created that has power to make these parts inaccessible to sysops as well.

Basically this is very useful to admins on bigger wikis such as enwiki which gets hit by page move vandals and this allows the admin to hide the log entry of the page move which usually contains links to shock sites or personal attacks on editors and admins alike or abuse of the privacy policy. I hope english wikipedia admins will support this idea which in the long run will benefit them the most ...--Cometstyles 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


See also: Wikimedia Forum#Implement of RevisionDelete.--Kwj2772 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


  1. Majorly talk 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. i was testing it on testwiki if it is live and if it is implementable i think it would be very helpful So let's   have it here --mardetanha 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. For a three-month test period with a re-evaluation at the end of said period. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  4.   Support - Per above by Cometstyles (talk · contribs), but for the three-month test period as suggested by Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  5.   Support sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. --J.smith 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. I'd love to see this get enabled on enwiki, and Meta's a great test bed for it. EVula // talk // // 19:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)



  • This is absolutely not a matter for voting. Nobody is objecting to having RevisionDelete replace Oversight. In fact, almost everybody is strongly in favor of it. There are a few more things that need to be done (making sure data doesn't leak into dumps, cleaning up the UI, etc.), but it's currently live on I suggest instead of spending time voting here, you help test it out there and find any bugs. :-) The relevant bug (which has comments from Brion) is bugzilla:15644. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have tested it on testwiki too, and I think its about time for it to be implemented on a broader level, the idea to get it enabled on all wikimedia wikis might not really be such a good idea for now and as you have mentioned, it still has some 'bugs' to fix and basically I think we should give it a kick-start here...--Cometstyles 02:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree completely with MZMcBride, it's the same as I said when this was suggested before. He's right, we test on testwiki not on production wikis (Meta). :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there's no need for community-level discussion. This will be enabled when it is ready, as determined by the technical team (ie Brion). Until then, testing will continue. In particular, the UI could be better.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


New year... you certainly do not have a LOT of time. But you certainly have ONE minute. Come on Wishes 2009 and without giving it long thinking, drop there the FIRST wish that comes to your mind for year 2009 regarding our projects and helping the world to be a more informed/educated place. Rule: no more than two sentences. Anthere 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it :-)

Get up to 1,000 € for translating???

So who gets to say what advertisement is allowed on Wikimedianotifier? And, if we ignore the fact that this ad was misleading: Wasn't being paid to contribute to a Wikimedia project frowned upon? (Then again, maybe this isn't a Wikimedia project. But then, why was it on the notifier?) Aliter 22:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The notifier is a user-run project. It is not sanctioned or run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not meant for "official" announcements; it is like Wikizine, an informative notifier for Wikimedia communities. Cbrown1023 talk 23:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Betawiki is the project where the Internationalisation and Localisation for MediaWiki is concentrated. The announcement of this price that is to be shared has been widely published. The official announcement has been checked by a large group of people and it is not misleading.
Payment to Wiki content is done on a wide scale. It has largely disappeared from the radar screen because that is considered the more prudent action to take. When you talk about "for money" contributions, you have to assess what the issues are. Here existing localisers are stimulated to help us reach the aims for the year Siebrand formulated in 2007. It may get us more people to consider contributing to Betawiki so the 1000 EURO spend is first and foremost advertisement money. The key thing to realise is that ALL MediaWiki users, including the WMF, do benefit from more and better quality localisations. Thanks, GerardM 08:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Another important distinction is that if Coca-Cola offers $1000 for someone to write articles on its company and products on si.wikipedia, there's an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the person receiving the monies: They'll do their best to put the company in a positive light, obviously. Interface translations, however, don't generate such a conflict of interest. I personally have no problem with "neutral" writing for money: If you hired a group of history teachers to write as accurate as possible a wikibook on world history with a neutral viewpoint, I'd applaud the effort. It depends on the reasoning behind it and the expectations you have regarding the results. Kylu 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kylu. -- sj | help translate |+

L10n of Global rights logs

Example of User rights log
  • 2009년 1월 6일 (화) 05:35 Thogo (토론 | 기여) User:Rama@commonswiki의 권한을 관리자에서 관리자, 오버사이트으로 변경 ‎ (per request on SRP and, ID:
Example of global rights log
  • 2009년 1월 5일 (월) 10:18 Jusjih (토론 | 기여) User:ArthurBot의 공통 계정 권한을 (none)에서 Global_bot으로 변경 ‎ (Steward requests/Bot status, 2008-12-17)

I don't understand why group name is not localized. MediaWiki:Rightsnone and MediaWiki:Group-Global_bot/ko is now localized in betawiki. Why global group name cannot be localized? (ps ExtensionWikimediaMessages is now really outdated. revision 45409 is now available. Why Wikimedia Foundation use old version?)--Kwj2772 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kwj2772, afaik usually it takes a while until the newer versions are updated. But probably there is a problem with the global logs, You could ask in #wikimedia-techconnect for direct help. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Log entry parameters can be localised, but are always displayed in the content language, as they are stored as text in the log entry. Siebrand 09:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strange, because it works for the deletion log, protection log, new user log, blocklog, etc., best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of global groups cannot be localized. They are made up by stewards, they are not part of the software. --Thogo (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of global group name can be localized at betawiki.--Kwj2772 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
More precise: They are messages in extension WikimediaMessages. Siebrand 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? But the names of global groups are not fixed. How can there be global MW messages for that? --Thogo (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to discuss localisation issues, do this at Betawiki. This is where your message will be seen and this is where you may get a solution. In all cases, the best way forward is to post a bugzilla bug. Thanks, GerardM 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Old IP talk pages

Is there any objection to deleting old IP talk pages that have no templates, no incoming links, no talk page activity in 18 months, no edits from the IP in 18 months, and no blocks? This would just be housekeeping and I would use the flood flag to avoid clogging up RecentChanges. --MZMcBride 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If they don't serve any useful purpose, I don't see what the loss is in removing them. Majorly talk 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me as well. --Meno25 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
yeah, there are many pages like that dating back over 18 months, we don't need them and McBride is a professional talkpage deletor, we are in good hands 9_9 ...--Cometstyles 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but what's the point? :-) Cbrown1023 talk 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the point? Old IP pages simply have no useful purpose here. There is no benefit in keeping them. Majorly talk 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
but there's no point in removing them. :-) I agree with EVula... but it's like, why bother fixing it if it aint broken? Cbrown1023 talk 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone offers to do it, and you don't mind either way, I don't see the problem in letting them. I'm sure MZM doesn't mind "bothering" to do it. Majorly talk 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't see any loss in removing them, but I don't see any point in it, either... EVula // talk // // 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, by the way. --MZMcBride 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the point of doing this. All it does is reduces records that would otherwise be transparent. Moreover, deleted edits still take up room in the servers. There's no benefit from this activity at all and if anything a small harm (since it takes additional server resources and reduces transparency). JoshuaZ 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I also find it silly, but it has already been done. he is doing the same thing on enwiki so we thought there might probably a good reason for it. I actually dislike the idea of deleting talkpages since it reduces an editors edit count (generally a vandal fighter who is constantly warning vandals).--Cometstyles 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does edit count matter anyway? Majorly talk 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with JoshuaZ here. I'd prefer to keep the talk pages around, especially on quieter projects like Meta.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been done... Majorly talk 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)