Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Depreciating older versions can result in loss of
transparency and subsequently mislead onlookers.

As this a somewhat complex scenario, I'll explain
using an example. Consider the following sequence
of events (which is btw the abstraction of a real
incident):

- revision 1 is reviewed by user A
- vandalized revision 2 is created and reviewed by user B
- a typo is corrected in revision 3, reviewed by user C
- user D removes vandalism in revision 4
- B depreciates revision 2

Obviously, user B is the one who did the sloppy work; 
the revision history however doesn't reflect this:

revision 4   user D   [sighted by User D] (remove vandalism)
revision 3   someone  [sighted by User C] (typo correction)
revision 2   vandal
revision 1   someone  [sighted by User A] (initial review)

Anyone not checking logs would conclude that user C 
erroneously reviewed the diff rev1-rev3, when in fact
s/he did nothing but review the typo correction rev2-rev3.

As this will inevitably lead to people barking up the wrong
tree and since I fail to see any actual advantage with
depreciating old versions, I'd strongly suggest to just
deactivate it and allow depreciating the current stable
version only. 

Regards, mnh