I agree with the analyses by Aleta and Alek.
For example, if you were to delete the previous sentence, using the {{excessive alliteration}} template, then people would be able to learn about the limits of our alliteration tolerance.
I could delete the offending text from the page history, but I almost never use the "oversight" power. Wikipedia managers greatly abuse this power, and I am determined not to let that happen here. So, basically, I don't want to give the authority to constables.
I am not aware of any serious evidence of abuse. One user was using vague summaries and suggested silly usage so Brion removed his rights until he explained them, but he got them back. So that seems a bit unfair bash WP on that.
On a side note, MediaWiki 1.12 should include ways to set visibility of revision in a more elegant, reversible, manner. On the other hand, purging page histories of all insults would be a petty and paranoid waste of time, unless there was libel or personal information in them. If people revert back, then just block them, full stop.
Well, Aaron, I've heard from many people about unaccountable admins deleting versions from page histories. From what I have heard, it's a well-justified criticism. Is there even a way for admins to track what has been deleted? If not, there isn't even a way for admins to know that a deletion took place, or who did it. One thing I certainly can say and that is there were multiple examples of PR-handling admin deletions in the Essjay scandal, as links to embarrassing items in page histories stopped working...
