Hi, I just noticed wikiHow’s How to Cope with Work Stress
being deleted and recreated by Reena Goenka
. I believed only boosters, admins and wikiHow staff can delete articles. I checked the log for the editor here
, but I don’t see them be either. This is what I find on logs:
- To add to this, it says “Automatically deleting”, and I don’t really know if articles can be deleted automatically.
- Also, I clearly remember the article being pretty good, well-explained steps and having images— I also remember formatting it (which Jayne mentioned about on this post
).
- I also don’t think that the article could have been deleted by a booster or admin— the same editor who deleted it also recreated it and is not a booster or admin, as per the logs.
- Even if there’s something wrong, and the editor has the user rights to delete articles, why would an experienced editor (I assume all boosters and admins are very experienced) create an un-formatted article?
I absolutely don’t know what’s going around with this. Anyone, who knows? If this has been deleted by accident, can some administrator restore
it? I’ll also ping @JayneG
once, in case she might be knowing anything about this…
When an article goes through NAB, a booster has the choice to either promote it (i.e. publish it live), or demote it so that it’s not indexed in search results. If they demote an article, and then someone starts a new article with the same title as the demoted one, the software deletes the previous version, so that the history isn’t tied to the new version of the page. It’s just attributed to the person who wrote the new version in the logs, even if they don’t have the appropriate user rights for other deletions. So rest assured it’s not a glitch or mistake
We can certainly restore an old version of a demoted article if you were still working on improving it. I’m actually about to crash, hah, so I can’t investigate too much right now, but I’m sure another admin will see this thread, or you can post on the ANB asking for someone to restore the content so you can continue working on it!
4 Likes
That sure makes sense to me now! Thank you for helping!
No, I mean, I’m not working on it… but I think the previous revision looked pretty good and was more or less helpful (I think so, although I didn’t test its accuracy). The current revision, not to offend
anyone, has a little ‘not how-to’ information and looks un-formatted to me. In my opinion, I think the previous revision could sit around, collecting more information. And eventually, it may become very helpful. Of course, this revision could, too, but that may need lots of more work. Clearly, I’m not someone to decide this, so I’ll leave this up to others!
1 Like
I formatted it to my knowledge. It was a good topic and this was a good discussion. I learned how this form of deletion works.
2 Likes
Thank you, @anon35810716
! This article looks good now, so I think it can be kept as it is.
1 Like
