Age of consent in Minnesota not 7, apparently.

[Giraffe Stapler]

An IP who was editing Ages of consent in the United States (T-H-L) has been blocked and the article semi-protected. Since 3 June, they have been changing the age of consent in Minnesota to 7. Then someone would change it back. Eighteen times. Eighteen! If someone asks you about the how well Wikipedia works, show them this example. I have been watching and quietly cheering them on in hope that they would get to a full month before being blocked.

El C (T-C-L), the admin who protected the article, suppressed every edit by the IP as "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". If you look that up, the policy says:

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value, or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When pages with grossly improper titles are in question, the page names may also be removed from the page creation, move, and delete logs.

Now I don't think there's anything of encyclopedia value in changing the number 16 to the number 7, but there's no reason to remove it from the history.
Fun fact: The age of consent in Minnesota is 16. Wikipedia's article now says it is 17. Thanks to El C, I can't tell who screwed it up, but I assume he did. Wikipedia at its finest.

[Vigilant]

These Age of Consent articles are supremely creepy in the first place.

[Beeblebrox]

It is fairly ridiculous that nobody called in an admin after say, the third time. I see users in the page history who probably should've known to do that.

[Poetlister]

Now I don't think there's anything of encyclopedia value in changing the number 16 to the number 7, but there's no reason to remove it from the history.

Suppression is not required, and probably not even allowed, under that policy. But no doubt some people would consider that it embarrasses Wikipedia and must therefore be swept under the carpet.

[Beeblebrox]

Suppression is not required, and probably not even allowed, under that policy. But no doubt some people would consider that it embarrasses Wikipedia and must therefore be swept under the carpet.

For someone who talks about Wikipedia every single day you have an annoying habit of getting your terminology wrong, like a lot. See this: link? See how you can see who changed the visibility of those revisions? That's a clue that it is revision deleted as opposed to suppressed. I realize the difference is academic for non-admins, but the rationales for the use of RevDel and suppression are different. In this case ElC cited "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" which is vague enough to cover all sorts of things, and could be interpreted as supporting this deletion. However, if you look at the protection log he cites child protection, which makes any follow-up actions fairly bulletproof, at least as a "first resort" action.

[Vigilant]

Suppression is not required, and probably not even allowed, under that policy. But no doubt some people would consider that it embarrasses Wikipedia and must therefore be swept under the carpet.

For someone who talks about Wikipedia every single day you have an annoying habit of getting your terminology wrong, like a lot. See this: link? See how you can see who changed the visibility of those revisions? That's a clue that it is revision deleted as opposed to suppressed. I realize the difference is academic for non-admins, but the rationales for the use of RevDel and suppression are different. In this case ElC cited "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" which is vague enough to cover all sorts of things, and could be interpreted as supporting this deletion. However, if you look at the protection log he cites child protection, which makes any follow-up actions fairly bulletproof, at least as a "first resort" action.

Poetlister, the one thing everyone can agree on...

[Poetlister]

Suppression is not required, and probably not even allowed, under that policy. But no doubt some people would consider that it embarrasses Wikipedia and must therefore be swept under the carpet.

For someone who talks about Wikipedia every single day you have an annoying habit of getting your terminology wrong, like a lot. See this: link? See how you can see who changed the visibility of those revisions? That's a clue that it is revision deleted as opposed to suppressed. I realize the difference is academic for non-admins, but the rationales for the use of RevDel and suppression are different. In this case ElC cited "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" which is vague enough to cover all sorts of things, and could be interpreted as supporting this deletion. However, if you look at the protection log he cites child protection, which makes any follow-up actions fairly bulletproof, at least as a "first resort" action.

You're attacking the wrong person. I did not look at the article. Giraffe Stapler said "El C(T-C-L), the admin who protected the article, suppressed every edit by the IP" and I believed him. I hope that you're not this sloppy when examining evidence while acting as a member of ArbCom.

[Giraffe Stapler]

You're attacking the wrong person. I did not look at the article. Giraffe Stapler said "El C(T-C-L), the admin who protected the article, suppressed every edit by the IP" and I believed him. I hope that you're not this sloppy when examining evidence while acting as a member of ArbCom.

Yep. It was my mistake. I can't be bothered to keep track of when things are suppressed, oversighted, revision deleted, hidden, or etc. The point is the same - there's no reason to hide childish vandalism like this.

[Beeblebrox]

the distinction really is as simple as "if you can tell who did it, it was revision deletion."

[Without Comfort]

the distinction really is as simple as "if you can tell who did it, it was revision deletion."

I look at the article history and cannot tell who revision deleted it though I understand GS identified El C.

[Anroth]

He means 'if you can tell who made the original edit'.

Rev-del removes the revision/content of the edit, but doesnt remove from sight the record of who made the edit. Suppression nukes it from everyone without the relevant authority to view it.

If you look at an edit history as a normal editor and you see a struck-through revision linked to a user/ip address. It wasnt suppressed.

[Poetlister]

He means 'if you can tell who made the original edit'.

Rev-del removes the revision/content of the edit, but doesnt remove from sight the record of who made the edit. Supression nukes it from everyone without the relevant authority to view it.

If you look at an edit history as a normal editor and you see a struck-through revision linked to a user/ip address. It wasnt supressed.

Rev-del is really rather half-hearted. Before it existed, we had to delete the article and then restore all the revisions except the ones we wanted to hide. This was tedious with an article with many revisions, but then nobody but admins could see who had made the edit.

[Beeblebrox]

He means 'if you can tell who made the original edit'.

Rev-del removes the revision/content of the edit, but doesnt remove from sight the record of who made the edit. Suppression nukes it from everyone without the relevant authority to view it.

If you look at an edit history as a normal editor and you see a struck-through revision linked to a user/ip address. It wasnt suppressed.

Nope. That is neither what I said nor what I meant.
You have to look in the logs. If there -is- a log, it was revdel.
Suppression logs are hidden, but otherwise the options (hide the edit, hide the username or IP, hide the edit summary) are the same. With both tools, only the problematic content should be removed, if the username or IP is removed it is because either the username was offensive or user edited while logged out by mistake, which happens a lot.

[Without Comfort]

I am looking for the applicable log, but haven't found it via the article history or account's contributions. I'm not seeing RD2 as the reason for the revdel either.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I don't know how to view logs.

Go to an article's history page. Under the page title it should say "View logs for this page (view filter log)". Ignore the bad grammar and user interface design. Click "view logs for this page".

On here, when someone posts a Wikipedia article link you should see "(T-H-L)" after it. Click "L" to see the logs.

[Without Comfort]

I don't know how to view logs.

Go to an article's history page. Under the page title it should say "View logs for this page (view filter log)". Ignore the bad grammar and user interface design. Click "view logs for this page".

On here, when someone posts a Wikipedia article link you should see "(T-H-L)" after it. Click "L" to see the logs.

I've never clicked the "L." Thanks.

[Poetlister]

The log is as follows (latest entry first):

* 15:06, 25 June 2021 El C talk contribs changed visibility of 18 revisions on page Ages of consent in the United States: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
* 15:05, 25 June 2021 El C talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page Ages of consent in the United States: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
* 15:02, 25 June 2021 El C talk contribs protected Ages of consent in the United States [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (critical WP:CHILDPROTECT page) (hist)
* 04:05, 5 October 2019 Darkwind talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page Ages of consent in the United States: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
* 19:56, 20 February 2017 RickinBaltimore talk contribs protected Ages of consent in the United States [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 19:56, 21 February 2017) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 19:56, 21 February 2017) (Persistent sock puppetry) (hist)

Note that there had obviously been problems with the article in 2017 and 2019.

[Beeblebrox]

I don't know how to view logs.

Go to an article's history page. Under the page title it should say "View logs for this page (view filter log)". Ignore the bad grammar and user interface design. Click "view logs for this page".

On here, when someone posts a Wikipedia article link you should see "(T-H-L)" after it. Click "L" to see the logs.

I've never clicked the "L." Thanks.

I've been doing this so long I do sometimes forget that not everybody knows these things.

Every time a page is created, moved, deleted, protected, or has revisions deleted it creates a log entry. Any live page has a log of every action dating back to when the page was created.

There are also user logs, showing account creation, blocks, renames, or user rights changes.

There's a decent help page about this at Help:Log (T-H-L).

[Without Comfort]

I don't know how to view logs.

Go to an article's history page. Under the page title it should say "View logs for this page (view filter log)". Ignore the bad grammar and user interface design. Click "view logs for this page".

On here, when someone posts a Wikipedia article link you should see "(T-H-L)" after it. Click "L" to see the logs.

I've never clicked the "L." Thanks.

I've been doing this so long I do sometimes forget that not everybody knows these things.

Every time a page is created, moved, deleted, protected, or has revisions deleted it creates a log entry. Any live page has a log of every action dating back to when the page was created.

There are also user logs, showing account creation, blocks, renames, or user rights changes.

There's a decent help page about this at Help:Log (T-H-L).

Thanks. I didn't know you can type "Help:Log" in the search box. I only knew you could use it to find articles or "User:Beeblebrox."