User talk:Jeff G.

From Outreach Wiki
(Redirected from User:Jeff G./talk)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello Jeff G., and welcome to the Outreach Wiki! This wiki serves as a collective knowledge and collaboration space used by the outreach team and members of the volunteer community. Here are a couple of links that serve as good places to start your journey:

If you have questions, feel free to visit the Village pump or to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. Happy editing!   — Jeff G. ツ 04:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain these revision deletions[edit]

Hi Jeff, why did you revdel these diffs? The problem was adequately addressed by User:Koavf, and I do not understand why you used revision deletion in this manner.

Thank you, --Pine 20:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: I'm sorry, I was following en:WP:DENY regarding the summaries. If you don't want me to, I won't.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeff, thank you for the explanation. I believe that the correct action in this case if we apply en:WP:DENY was "Quietly revert or blank", which Koavf did. Revision deletion is often unnecessary for routine vandalism, and the English Wikipedia policy sets a somewhat high standard for the use of revision deletion, stating "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries." I would like to request that you read the whole of that policy page. If, after you read that page, you continue to believe that there is a reason to leave those edits revdeled then please comment here. (I can make mistakes too.) Otherwise, please restore the revdeled edit but leave it blanked, as Koavf did. Thank you. --Pine 04:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: I restored my change in the second link, thanks for your patience.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeff. Is there a reason not to restore the diff in the first link also? With routine vanadlism I think that there is no need for it to be revdeled. I think that reverting the edit, as Koavf did, is sufficient. --Pine 20:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: I didn't touch that one.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that you were the person who deleted that one. Koavf, I think that first diff should be undeleted, per my points earlier in this discussion with Jeff. What do you think? --Pine 23:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: I could but I am a fan of w:en:WP:DENY for things like purely disruptive attention-seeking. There's no point in retaining the history for attribution, it adds nothing to the community, etc. If you really want me to undelete, I can. Undelete the name? Content? Edit summary? Koavf (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Koavf, my reading of the English Wikipedia revdel policy is that routine vandalism should not be revdeled, so I would undelete all of the above but leave content blanked. We are not obligated to go by ENWP policy on Outreach wiki, but I am inclined not to reinvent the wheel. --Pine 23:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: Since both Jeff and I as admins feel like DENY is a relevant policy here, I'm disinclined to rescind it. Happy to have a conversation with the admins or community at large if you initiate. Koavf (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine, Koavf: See also en:WP:LTA/BMX.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: OK, for the present moment I will accept the revdel. I think that what would be better is for me to raise the general question on English Wikipedia of whether under ENWP's revdel policy deleting typical vandalism is acceptable. After ENWP comes to a conclusion then we can reconsider the issue here, if we want. --Pine 20:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: good catch on the LTA. I would have missed that. I don't think that the LTA case influences how I would use revdel here, but that's good to know if we start to see a pattern that seems consistent with that LTA's pattern, because we might want to involve a steward to request a use of Checkuser to look for socks and consider rangeblocks. --Pine 20:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: Thanks. This LTA is no typical vandal. It has been annoying me and others for a long time. The LTA page reflects our long experience and best practices regarding that individual and any imitators.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]