Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't ask me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may be repeated by others onsite. It really doesn't matter whether an attempted outing is accurate or not, nor how well known the information may be elsewhere on the Internet. Some of the trolls tried to use this example as a wedge issue: if we accept their claims then we allow them to override policy and arbitration and we create a loophole of unknown size in which Internet harassment becomes a basis for attempted identifications onsite. The double bind they tried to force us into is basically a claim that the sysop community would undermine Wikipedia's credibility and lend credence to the conspiracy story if we followed normal procedure and continued deleting those attempted disclosures. In my view, I just followed normal procedure. SlimVirgin didn't become a public figure because one indivdual tried to astroturf a single story in three very minor venues. The comparisons they tried to make to the Essjay incident don't bear up to any level of scrutiny.
-Durova
On 05/08/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't ask me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may be repeated by others onsite. It really doesn't matter whether an attempted outing is accurate or not, nor how well known the information may be elsewhere on the Internet. Some of the trolls tried to use this example as a wedge issue: if we accept their claims then we allow them to override policy and arbitration and we create a loophole of unknown size in which Internet harassment becomes a basis for attempted identifications onsite. The double bind they tried to force us into is basically a claim that the sysop community would undermine Wikipedia's credibility and lend credence to the conspiracy story if we followed normal procedure and continued deleting those attempted disclosures. In my view, I just followed normal procedure. SlimVirgin didn't become a public figure because one indivdual tried to astroturf a single story in three very minor venues. The comparisons they tried to make to the Essjay incident don't bear up to any level of scrutiny.
-Durova
Yes, I completely agree with this. It doesn't matter much if the argument is 'she got outed -> she hurt Wikipaedia -> she needs to leave' or 'she got outed -> there was some response to this -> this hurt Wikipaedia -> she needs to leave'. Ultimately, it's not her fault, and not only that, it's something on which she ought to be supported, not told to leave.
So thanks for any and all deletions on this matter. : )
Armed Blowfish
On 8/5/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't ask me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may be repeated by others onsite. It really doesn't matter whether an attempted outing is accurate or not, nor how well known the information may be elsewhere on the Internet. Some of the trolls tried to use this example as a wedge issue: if we accept their claims then we allow them to override policy and arbitration and we create a loophole of unknown size in which Internet harassment becomes a basis for attempted identifications onsite. The double bind they tried to force us into is basically a claim that the sysop community would undermine Wikipedia's credibility and lend credence to the conspiracy story if we followed normal procedure and continued deleting those attempted disclosures. In my view, I just followed normal procedure. SlimVirgin didn't become a public figure because one indivdual tried to astroturf a single story in three very minor venues. The comparisons they tried to make to the Essjay incident don't bear up to any level of scrutiny.
-Durova
I agree 100%, and would like to commend Durova for the calmness and sensitivity she has shown.
Elinor
Durova, I greatly respect your work on this, but slashdot is not a minor venue. I highly regret such a posting appeared there, but it did.
On 8/5/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/5/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't ask me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may be repeated by others onsite. It really doesn't matter whether an attempted outing is accurate or not, nor how well known the information may be elsewhere on the Internet. Some of the trolls tried to use this example as a wedge issue: if we accept their claims then we allow them to override policy and arbitration and we create a loophole of unknown size in which Internet harassment becomes a basis for attempted identifications onsite. The double bind they tried to force us into is basically a claim that the sysop community would undermine Wikipedia's credibility and lend credence to the conspiracy story if we followed normal procedure and continued deleting those attempted disclosures. In my view, I just followed normal procedure. SlimVirgin didn't become a public figure because one indivdual tried to astroturf a single story in three very minor venues. The comparisons they tried to make to the Essjay incident don't bear up to any level of scrutiny.
-Durova
I agree 100%, and would like to commend Durova for the calmness and sensitivity she has shown.
Elinor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 01:51:19PM -0700, Durova wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't ask me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may be repeated by others onsite.
I would define self-disclosure as revealing personal information by the users own contributions. Therefore I still wonder, why all (exept for the last 500) contributions of SlimVirgin have been removed from her contribution history.
br
On 8/6/07, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 01:51:19PM -0700, Durova wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I
don't
think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't
ask
me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may
be
repeated by others onsite.
I would define self-disclosure as revealing personal information by the users own contributions. Therefore I still wonder, why all (exept for the last 500) contributions of SlimVirgin have been removed from her contribution history.
br
Raphael
They haven't been. This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin
goes back thousands and thousands of edits. I got bored clicking on "next 500" so many times.
Elinor
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:06:39PM +0100, ElinorD wrote:
On 8/6/07, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 01:51:19PM -0700, Durova wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I
don't
think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV didn't
ask
me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and arbitration precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity may
be
repeated by others onsite.
I would define self-disclosure as revealing personal information by the users own contributions. Therefore I still wonder, why all (exept for the last 500) contributions of SlimVirgin have been removed from her contribution history.
br
Raphael
They haven't been. This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin
goes back thousands and thousands of edits. I got bored clicking on "next 500" so many times.
Well, they have been removed, but someone obviously restored the history.
br
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy to remove that much of someone's contribution history for any reason. The devs would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
On 8/6/07, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:06:39PM +0100, ElinorD wrote:
On 8/6/07, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 01:51:19PM -0700, Durova wrote:
Re: "BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection.
I
don't
think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware."
I did a bit of refactoring myself on that, and for the record SV
didn't
ask
me to. That was based purely upon my reading of policy and
arbitration
precedents, in which only self-disclosures of an editor's identity
may
be
repeated by others onsite.
I would define self-disclosure as revealing personal information by the users own contributions. Therefore I still wonder, why all (exept for the last 500) contributions of SlimVirgin have been removed from her contribution history.
br
Raphael
They haven't been. This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin
goes back thousands and thousands of edits. I got bored clicking on
"next
500" so many times.
Well, they have been removed, but someone obviously restored the history.
br
Raphael
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy to remove that much of someone's contribution history for any reason. The devs would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
On 8/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy to remove that much of someone's contribution history for any reason. The devs would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
Whose copyright would be violated? If the long-time editor gives you permission, then I don't see how it could constitute a copyright violation.
I actually think it'd be a good idea to oversight all but the last 500 edits of any user upon request. But only if it's a service available to everyone equally. I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
Courtesy Blanking is different from oversighting.
Oversighting can only be done *if* the contributer agrees to release their contributions under a license that doesn't require attribution, or into the public domain. Alternatively, things can probably be oversighted if they're deleted (there's some talk about this not being allowed under the GFDL, but I think that's wrong - as long as the contribution isn't included, it can be oversighted from the history.) Otherwise, in principle we're violating someone's copyright, and they're entitled to get crotchety.
Courtesy blanking is different - it can be done anywhere. What pages bothers you - I'll have a look.
WilyD
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy
to
remove that much of someone's contribution history for any
reason. The devs
would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
Whose copyright would be violated? If the long-time editor gives you permission, then I don't see how it could constitute a copyright violation.
I actually think it'd be a good idea to oversight all but the last 500 edits of any user upon request. But only if it's a service available to everyone equally. I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy to remove that much of someone's contribution history for any reason. The devs would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
Whose copyright would be violated? If the long-time editor gives you permission, then I don't see how it could constitute a copyright violation.
I actually think it'd be a good idea to oversight all but the last 500 edits of any user upon request. But only if it's a service available to everyone equally. I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
Become an admin, then you can oversight your user page at will.
KP
On 8/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Become an admin, then you can oversight your user page at will.
As was pointed out, admins delete (and protect) their user and user talk pages at will, but don't have the power to oversight them.
This would be a nice power to have, but that whole "become an admin" part isn't foreseeable.
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy to remove that much of someone's contribution history for any reason. The devs would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
Whose copyright would be violated? If the long-time editor gives you permission, then I don't see how it could constitute a copyright violation.
I actually think it'd be a good idea to oversight all but the last 500 edits of any user upon request. But only if it's a service available to everyone equally. I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
Become an admin, then you can oversight your user page at will.
KP
Stock admins don't get the Oversight power. (And for good reason!)
Are you guys saying 'oversight' where you really mean 'delete'?
-- gwern L34A1 Uziel Razor Avi AOL ISI Delta MI-17 B-52h/g garbage
On 8/8/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy to remove that much of someone's contribution history for any reason. The devs would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
Whose copyright would be violated? If the long-time editor gives you permission, then I don't see how it could constitute a copyright violation.
I actually think it'd be a good idea to oversight all but the last 500 edits of any user upon request. But only if it's a service available to everyone equally. I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
Become an admin, then you can oversight your user page at will.
KP
Stock admins don't get the Oversight power. (And for good reason!)
Are you guys saying 'oversight' where you really mean 'delete'?
-- gwern L34A1 Uziel Razor Avi AOL ISI Delta MI-17 B-52h/g garbage
Nope, I'm talking about an admin who recently oversighted much of his talk page, then himself. And it's not the first time I've seen it happen. And courtesy oversights are done for users all of the time--and I don't mean "delete," unless by that you mean good-bye to the page's edit history also.
KP
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
Nope, I'm talking about an admin who recently oversighted much of his talk page, then himself. And it's not the first time I've seen it happen. And courtesy oversights are done for users all of the time--and I don't mean "delete," unless by that you mean good-bye to the page's edit history also.
KP
Uh, yes, I do. That's what deletion means. It's not just page blanking, but rendering inaccessible to admins all past revisions/page history. That's what it has always meant; courtesy deletions aren't sinister at all. I've requested and done them many a time.
Oversight is deletion for admins; deletion where they aren't allowed to see what was deleted. The only 'courtesy oversights' I can think of is the usual OTRS and "personal information" stuff. (Well, that and embarrassing stuff like the original Seigenthaler article. That was deleted and moved and oversighted so many times I'm not sure it can be recovered even with oversight.)
-- gwern L34A1 Uziel Razor Avi AOL ISI Delta MI-17 B-52h/g garbage
On 8/8/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
Nope, I'm talking about an admin who recently oversighted much of his talk page, then himself. And it's not the first time I've seen it happen. And courtesy oversights are done for users all of the time--and I don't mean "delete," unless by that you mean good-bye to the page's edit history also.
KP
Uh, yes, I do. That's what deletion means. It's not just page blanking, but rendering inaccessible to admins all past revisions/page history. That's what it has always meant; courtesy deletions aren't sinister at all. I've requested and done them many a time.
Oversight is deletion for admins; deletion where they aren't allowed to see what was deleted. The only 'courtesy oversights' I can think of is the usual OTRS and "personal information" stuff. (Well, that and embarrassing stuff like the original Seigenthaler article. That was deleted and moved and oversighted so many times I'm not sure it can be recovered even with oversight.)
-- gwern L34A1 Uziel Razor Avi AOL ISI Delta MI-17 B-52h/g garbage
So, explain this slowly, so I udnerstand. There are actually three levels of deletion, or maybe only two. When a page history is deleted so only the annoited can see what was there, that's just regular courtesy blanking? But, of course, not being one of the chosen, how can I tell that that is the case? All I can see is that one day there is a page I posted on, and the next day that page, and my post, and that page's history is completely gone. How do I know, again, not being among the annoited, that it hasn't been oversighted? I don't. All I know is the history is gone, the innocuous, had nothing to do with conspiracies, history of a Wikipedia page is completely gone.
So, having a category of deletions that only the uber-privileged even know whether that is it or not doesn't really mean anything. The page was blanked, access to its history removed from the peons, those lower down pieces of doo-doo who are only good enough to, sometimes, write the encyclopedia.
So, thanks for pointing out that I'm not good enough to know the difference--this seems to be the Wikipedia day for pointing out there are two solid classes of Wikipedians: those who are wanted, and those who aren't.
KP
There are three "levels" or types of deletion:
1. Blanking --> simplest, anyone can do this and view the blanked content in the history 2. Deletion --> admins can do this easily, other admins can see this and it is shown in a public log 3. Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently* removed from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private log that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the oversight permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
On 8/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
Nope, I'm talking about an admin who recently oversighted much of his talk page, then himself. And it's not the first time I've seen it happen. And courtesy oversights are done for users all of the time--and I don't mean "delete," unless by that you mean good-bye to the page's edit history also.
KP
Uh, yes, I do. That's what deletion means. It's not just page blanking,
but rendering inaccessible to admins all past revisions/page history. That's what it has always meant; courtesy deletions aren't sinister at all. I've requested and done them many a time.
Oversight is deletion for admins; deletion where they aren't allowed to
see what was deleted. The only 'courtesy oversights' I can think of is the usual OTRS and "personal information" stuff. (Well, that and embarrassing stuff like the original Seigenthaler article. That was deleted and moved and oversighted so many times I'm not sure it can be recovered even with oversight.)
-- gwern L34A1 Uziel Razor Avi AOL ISI Delta MI-17 B-52h/g garbage
So, explain this slowly, so I udnerstand. There are actually three levels of deletion, or maybe only two. When a page history is deleted so only the annoited can see what was there, that's just regular courtesy blanking? But, of course, not being one of the chosen, how can I tell that that is the case? All I can see is that one day there is a page I posted on, and the next day that page, and my post, and that page's history is completely gone. How do I know, again, not being among the annoited, that it hasn't been oversighted? I don't. All I know is the history is gone, the innocuous, had nothing to do with conspiracies, history of a Wikipedia page is completely gone.
So, having a category of deletions that only the uber-privileged even know whether that is it or not doesn't really mean anything. The page was blanked, access to its history removed from the peons, those lower down pieces of doo-doo who are only good enough to, sometimes, write the encyclopedia.
So, thanks for pointing out that I'm not good enough to know the difference--this seems to be the Wikipedia day for pointing out there are two solid classes of Wikipedians: those who are wanted, and those who aren't.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 08/08/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
- Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently* removed
from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private log that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the oversight permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
The log ([[Special:Oversight]]) shows the oversighter, the oversighted text and the reason for oversighting.
(This should be detailed on mediawiki.org somewhere ... I believe it's available as an extension.)
- d.
I am almost positive it is detailed there... yup, on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight, but it will likely be replaced soon by the new system being developed by VoiceOfAll (and others): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted. But what you said is detailed on the meta page I linked to, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hiding_revisions.
On 8/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/08/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
- Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently*
removed
from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private
log
that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the
oversight
permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
The log ([[Special:Oversight]]) shows the oversighter, the oversighted text and the reason for oversighting.
(This should be detailed on mediawiki.org somewhere ... I believe it's available as an extension.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bitfield for rev deleted already works. Has it not been installed on en-Wikipaedia?
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
I am almost positive it is detailed there... yup, on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight, but it will likely be replaced soon by the new system being developed by VoiceOfAll (and others): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted. But what you said is detailed on the meta page I linked to, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hiding_revisions.
On 8/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/08/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
- Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently*
removed
from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private
log
that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the
oversight
permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
The log ([[Special:Oversight]]) shows the oversighter, the oversighted text and the reason for oversighting.
(This should be detailed on mediawiki.org somewhere ... I believe it's available as an extension.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, it still hasn't been installed on the Wikimedia sites and I am not sure Aaron has knocked all the bugs out of yet.
On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Bitfield for rev deleted already works. Has it not been installed on en-Wikipaedia?
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
I am almost positive it is detailed there... yup, on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight, but it will likely be replaced soon by the new system being developed by VoiceOfAll (and
others):
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted. But what you
said
is detailed on the meta page I linked to, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hiding_revisions.
On 8/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/08/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
- Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently*
removed
from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a
private
log
that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the
oversight
permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
The log ([[Special:Oversight]]) shows the oversighter, the oversighted text and the reason for oversighting.
(This should be detailed on mediawiki.org somewhere ... I believe it's available as an extension.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails
sent
to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 0, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com scribbled:
There are three "levels" or types of deletion:
- Blanking --> simplest, anyone can do this and view the blanked content in
the history 2. Deletion --> admins can do this easily, other admins can see this and it is shown in a public log 3. Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently* removed from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private log that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the oversight permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
-- Casey Brown
Don't forget level 4: "Deleted off the hard disks completely." IIRC, everything that was deleted (#2) before something like March 2004 was accidentally completely deleted (#4) by the devs, and of course we only comparatively recently got true #2 deletion for images (that is, allowing for admins to undelete).
-- gwern Verizon BZ ReMOB Event W70 Wilma DODIG ETA DNR replay
Yes, administrators always have to remember that. We should treat deletion as permanent, but you normally can access it for months afterwards. :)
On 8/9/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com scribbled:
There are three "levels" or types of deletion:
- Blanking --> simplest, anyone can do this and view the blanked
content in
the history 2. Deletion --> admins can do this easily, other admins can see this and
it
is shown in a public log 3. Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently*
removed
from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private
log
that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the
oversight
permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
-- Casey Brown
Don't forget level 4: "Deleted off the hard disks completely." IIRC, everything that was deleted (#2) before something like March 2004 was accidentally completely deleted (#4) by the devs, and of course we only comparatively recently got true #2 deletion for images (that is, allowing for admins to undelete).
-- gwern Verizon BZ ReMOB Event W70 Wilma DODIG ETA DNR replay
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/08/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com scribbled:
There are three "levels" or types of deletion:
- Blanking --> simplest, anyone can do this and view the blanked content
in
the history 2. Deletion --> admins can do this easily, other admins can see this and
it
is shown in a public log 3. Oversight --> [[m:Hiding revisions]] revisions are *permanently*
removed
from the database by those with the "oversight" permission, can only be re-added by developers (I think root). However, there is a private log that shows a *little* information. Oversights (people with the oversight permission) are assigned by ArbCom.
-- Casey Brown
Don't forget level 4: "Deleted off the hard disks completely." IIRC, everything that was deleted (#2) before something like March 2004 was accidentally completely deleted (#4) by the devs, and of course we only comparatively recently got true #2 deletion for images (that is, allowing for admins to undelete).
-- gwern
Actually, it would be 4) unlinking, where you delete the entry in the file system that says where the file is on the hard disk, and 5) shredding, where you overwrite the file in zeros.
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
So, explain this slowly, so I udnerstand. There are actually three levels of deletion, or maybe only two. When a page history is deleted so only the annoited can see what was there, that's just regular courtesy blanking? But, of course, not being one of the chosen, how can I tell that that is the case? All I can see is that one day there is a page I posted on, and the next day that page, and my post, and that page's history is completely gone. How do I know, again, not being among the annoited, that it hasn't been oversighted? I don't. All I know is the history is gone, the innocuous, had nothing to do with conspiracies, history of a Wikipedia page is completely gone.
Here's what it is. Basically, you have normal editorial process, the way a wiki always works. You can add material, you can remove it; anything removed shows up in the edit history. You can blank a page completely in the current version, but you still have an old copy to fall back on.
Now, sometimes, just removing the offending text and letting people find it in the history is undesirable; you want shot of it properly. MediaWiki has a "deletion" feature, which takes the page (strictly, all revisions of the page) and marks them as not being visible. They're still there in the database, but are no longer visible unless you have the specific rights; it's reversible by undeletion. Deletions and undeletions are logged, and you can see - I think - how many revisions of a given page are currently deleted. You can't tell where those deletions "came" in the history - I think simply through the fact that this never got coded rather than any deliberate decision - which is faintly irritating.
There *used* to be the ability to view the timestamps and edit summaries of deleted revisions, but this was removed due to abusive use of edit summaries; there's a patch being worked on to try and get round this, but I'm not clear what happened to it.
The rights to delete, undelete, and view deleted revisions are handed out to admins; essentially, whilst we don't particularly want to *publish* this material, we see no reason not to have it "on file" to help us do various editorial roles. It's given only to admins because we have no actual mechanism (or community standing) for any kind of actively-determined user rights below that, and we don't want to give it out automatically for reasonably clear reasons!
"Oversight" is essentially *actually* deleting a revision; going out and nuking it from the database (or the next best thing to it). Replacing it may or may not be possible, and certainly isn't very practical. MediaWiki doesn't tell people there was an oversighted revision because, effectively, as far as it knows that revision never existed - unlike deletion, where it knows the revision existed, just got flagged "removed". There is an oversight log, which records the time and reason for oversighting, and what the revision was; this is kept private because the content is presumed sensitive.
On 08/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what it is. Basically, you have normal editorial process, the way a wiki always works. You can add material, you can remove it; anything removed shows up in the edit history. You can blank a page completely in the current version, but you still have an old copy to fall back on.
Now, sometimes, just removing the offending text and letting people find it in the history is undesirable; you want shot of it properly. MediaWiki has a "deletion" feature, which takes the page (strictly, all revisions of the page) and marks them as not being visible. They're still there in the database, but are no longer visible unless you have the specific rights; it's reversible by undeletion. Deletions and undeletions are logged, and you can see - I think - how many revisions of a given page are currently deleted. You can't tell where those deletions "came" in the history - I think simply through the fact that this never got coded rather than any deliberate decision - which is faintly irritating.
There *used* to be the ability to view the timestamps and edit summaries of deleted revisions, but this was removed due to abusive use of edit summaries; there's a patch being worked on to try and get round this, but I'm not clear what happened to it.
The rights to delete, undelete, and view deleted revisions are handed out to admins; essentially, whilst we don't particularly want to *publish* this material, we see no reason not to have it "on file" to help us do various editorial roles. It's given only to admins because we have no actual mechanism (or community standing) for any kind of actively-determined user rights below that, and we don't want to give it out automatically for reasonably clear reasons!
"Oversight" is essentially *actually* deleting a revision; going out and nuking it from the database (or the next best thing to it). Replacing it may or may not be possible, and certainly isn't very practical. MediaWiki doesn't tell people there was an oversighted revision because, effectively, as far as it knows that revision never existed - unlike deletion, where it knows the revision existed, just got flagged "removed". There is an oversight log, which records the time and reason for oversighting, and what the revision was; this is kept private because the content is presumed sensitive.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A nice summary.
So one needs read access to the Linux filesystem of the Wikimedia servers to look at an oversighted edit?
That would seem to make Oversight a bigger deal than it ought to be. There are a number of things one might not want every admin to be able to see, but which one might want to keep accessible to ArbCom, etc. : (
Is there a Bugzilla report filed somewhere to get the bitfields extension committed?
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/2007, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what it is. Basically, you have normal editorial process, the way a wiki always works. You can add material, you can remove it; anything removed shows up in the edit history. You can blank a page completely in the current version, but you still have an old copy to fall back on.
Now, sometimes, just removing the offending text and letting people find it in the history is undesirable; you want shot of it properly. MediaWiki has a "deletion" feature, which takes the page (strictly, all revisions of the page) and marks them as not being visible. They're still there in the database, but are no longer visible unless you have the specific rights; it's reversible by undeletion. Deletions and undeletions are logged, and you can see - I think - how many revisions of a given page are currently deleted. You can't tell where those deletions "came" in the history - I think simply through the fact that this never got coded rather than any deliberate decision - which is faintly irritating.
There *used* to be the ability to view the timestamps and edit summaries of deleted revisions, but this was removed due to abusive use of edit summaries; there's a patch being worked on to try and get round this, but I'm not clear what happened to it.
The rights to delete, undelete, and view deleted revisions are handed out to admins; essentially, whilst we don't particularly want to *publish* this material, we see no reason not to have it "on file" to help us do various editorial roles. It's given only to admins because we have no actual mechanism (or community standing) for any kind of actively-determined user rights below that, and we don't want to give it out automatically for reasonably clear reasons!
"Oversight" is essentially *actually* deleting a revision; going out and nuking it from the database (or the next best thing to it). Replacing it may or may not be possible, and certainly isn't very practical. MediaWiki doesn't tell people there was an oversighted revision because, effectively, as far as it knows that revision never existed - unlike deletion, where it knows the revision existed, just got flagged "removed". There is an oversight log, which records the time and reason for oversighting, and what the revision was; this is kept private because the content is presumed sensitive.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A nice summary.
-- Alex (Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 08/08/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Oversight is deletion for admins; deletion where they aren't allowed to see what was deleted. The only 'courtesy oversights' I can think of is the usual OTRS and "personal information" stuff. (Well, that and embarrassing stuff like the original Seigenthaler article. That was deleted and moved and oversighted so many times I'm not sure it can be recovered even with oversight.)
Oversight is for material which would be personally dangerous or legally questionable to reveal. The key heuristic is: "should this material not even be available to admins?" We tend to err on the side of oversighting rather than not, fwiw.
For *almost everything* that shouldn't be visible to the general public, an ordinary deletion is quite sufficient - even if we had ten thousand admins, that's a lot less than making it accessible to billions.
- d.
On 8/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/08/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Oversight is deletion for admins; deletion where they aren't allowed to
see what was deleted. The only 'courtesy oversights' I can think of is the usual OTRS and "personal information" stuff. (Well, that and embarrassing stuff like the original Seigenthaler article. That was deleted and moved and oversighted so many times I'm not sure it can be recovered even with oversight.)
Oversight is for material which would be personally dangerous or legally questionable to reveal. The key heuristic is: "should this material not even be available to admins?" We tend to err on the side of oversighting rather than not, fwiw.
For *almost everything* that shouldn't be visible to the general public, an ordinary deletion is quite sufficient - even if we had ten thousand admins, that's a lot less than making it accessible to billions.
- d.
But if a particular edit made on 17 June shouldn't be available to the general public, and an admin just deletes it and partially restores the page, but the edit isn't oversighted, and then on 19 July, another inappropriate edit is made, the admin who deletes and partially restores the page the second time is extremely likely to accidentally restore the edit from 17 June. Is that not the case? ~~~~
Elinor
On 08/08/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/08/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Oversight is deletion for admins; deletion where they aren't allowed to
see what was deleted. The only 'courtesy oversights' I can think of is the usual OTRS and "personal information" stuff. (Well, that and embarrassing stuff like the original Seigenthaler article. That was deleted and moved and oversighted so many times I'm not sure it can be recovered even with oversight.)
Oversight is for material which would be personally dangerous or legally questionable to reveal. The key heuristic is: "should this material not even be available to admins?" We tend to err on the side of oversighting rather than not, fwiw.
For *almost everything* that shouldn't be visible to the general public, an ordinary deletion is quite sufficient - even if we had ten thousand admins, that's a lot less than making it accessible to billions.
- d.
But if a particular edit made on 17 June shouldn't be available to the general public, and an admin just deletes it and partially restores the page, but the edit isn't oversighted, and then on 19 July, another inappropriate edit is made, the admin who deletes and partially restores the page the second time is extremely likely to accidentally restore the edit from 17 June. Is that not the case? ~~~~
If we assume the admin is sufficiently incompetent not to have paid due care and attention, yes. I've made this sort of deletion before - often where the previous deleting admin was me, which helped - and whilst it needs two or three windows open in tabs and a lot of careful thought, it's certainly solvable as long as you're alert and not treating delete/undelete as a routine.
We probably need a *better* method for handling multiple deletion/undeletions, which would be better than more broad use of oversight. I believe one is in the pipeline which allows you to selectively delete revisions from the getgo, rather than have to delete the whole page and restore, which ought to make this situation moot.
On 08/08/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Casey Brown wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking about her many archives? It would be crazy
to
remove that much of someone's contribution history for any
reason. The devs
would absolutely throw a fit! :-P
It would probably involve a lot of GFDL violation, too. Removing the edit history of a prolific long-time editor would potentially make thousands of articles into copyvios.
Whose copyright would be violated? If the long-time editor gives you permission, then I don't see how it could constitute a copyright violation.
Well it would violate the GFDL which requires attribution, Unless of course you agree to relinquish all rights to those edits and release them into the public domain without need for attribution.
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
Are you referring to the arbcom proceedings? Is there a reason they can't be courtesy blanked?
On 8/8/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I feel similar about all this courtesy-blanking stuff. The top google hit for my name still contains an undeserved hate-fest by various Wikipedians from over 3 years ago. I've talked to OTRS, I've talked to arb com members, I've talked to some of the people making the malicious statements, and what courtesy do I get? So far none.
Are you referring to the arbcom proceedings? Is there a reason they can't be courtesy blanked?
I think most of the pages are related to arbcom. One is a strange request for adminship which someone else nominated me for and I eventually withdrew. As far as I know there isn't any reason they can't be courtesy blanked, but I haven't yet found someone willing to do it. OTRS told me to talk to an arb com member, the two arb com members I pinged didn't even respond to me. I'm not interested in bringing up a formal request on-wiki, because that'll just add even more links to the pages.
On 8/6/07, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Well, they have been removed, but someone obviously restored the history.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I think it much more likely that you overlooked the 'Next 500' button.
-Matt
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 07:54:17PM -0700, Matthew Brown wrote:
On 8/6/07, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Well, they have been removed, but someone obviously restored the history.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I think it much more likely that you overlooked the 'Next 500' button.
I don't think so, but I do err sometimes. Anyway, only admins might be able to proof that.
br