Talk:Bitfields for rev deleted

Roadmap
Has anyone an idea, what the roadmap could look like? When it's planed to introduce into the stabile, quarterly release? --Nyks 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

steward-only or oversight-only
Presumably, where this is used as a drop-in replacement for the oversight system, and the oversight permission bit is used, steward-only would really be oversight-only? Triona 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not related. Oversight is a stop-gap solution until this system is ready for actual use (or perhaps a replacement for it, if this never works). --Brion VIBBER 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Incompatibility with ext:oversight?
Hello, I'm going to setup a new wiki - I'm wondering if I can install the oversight extension or will be any incompatibility when the revision deletion system will be fully implemented. Also, I see Special:Revisiondelete is already included in phase3; can I use that page (i.e. it works)? Thanks! --84.221.209.77 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The bitfield system is half-done, and is on hold until issues are resolved. It may or may not eventually be finished, or it might be scrapped.


 * Oversight was created as a stop-gap, to deal with the high-priority cases for high-level revision removal due to privacy issues. If revision deletion bitfields go into full use later, there won't be a compatibility problem; we'll just stop using the old oversight system. --Brion VIBBER 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple item selection
Can it be clarified if this is possible or not? Often it'smultiple revisions tobe deleted. If the page says this, I may have missed it... FT2 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementation
Anyone know when this will be used Wikimedia-wide?? Seems like a great thing btw. AC --82.42.237.84 15:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The presence of a -any- deletion having occured should be ascertainable by anyone.
Since many pages DO document all activity they would benefit from this. Now I wonder what pages I thought uncensored might in fact be. Don't you know you can't trust anyone all the time? Nor even a community? As long as there is a single page that has not had a deletion it should say so. The present policy would seem to require I boycot further support of you. You actually allow this when you have the right to not- why? Even when the contribution can't be distributed for free if it can be paid for that should be the first resort and automating that is within reach.

I have posted here because there is no disclaimer in the HISTORY feature saying it is partial only! It's discovery should not have us suffer it's apparent only charm. What happens to the permalink itself? How can this page and it's referrer fail to comment on that! I ASSUME IT'S RETIRED AND SOME MESSAGE DISPLAYS. From now on I will just view source/copy & paste content found here. I will also search for a service that can restore access to retired permalinks that survived long enough to allow such archiving although I willnot expect it or you to facillitate or intercept fulfillments with notice of it. Someday I will watch interviews I've already seen again for the missed moment disclosing this necessity sure but gone wild no less certifiably.

And I almost forgot to copy this as it won't be online for long! Imagine that.

Oversight transparency
It seems to me that Oversight is very powerful, and in the interests of transparency and accountability, an oversighted revision entry should include some/all of the following: (a) Who performed the oversight (b) When (c) Why (d) On whose request, eg.

(cur|prev) 15:00, 13 Dec 2008 12.21.029.177 (Comment and edit removed by John K on 17 Dec 2008, potential libel issue, requested by Jane Doe)

I also think that Oversight should always be performed by a least two admins, at least one of whom has Oversight permissions. --Iantresman 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Can some knowledgeable person correct the alleged inaccuracies at bitfields for rev deleted? Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)