On 6/18/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: We also had an admin sockpuppet account un hard-blocking TOR proxies and then soft blocking so his other sockpuppets could use them. And somehow Wikitruth has access to every single deleted page on Wikipedia.

On 6/18/07, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net> wrote: We could just start tracking who is accessing deleted material, just as we monitor checkuser access.

On 6/18/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: We have solid evidence otherwise. -- geni

Would a logging system be nice, probably. Is it number one priority for the devs to implement, I'm not so sure. There are other things I'd like to see, such as the ability to move images, and to protect images. (Two needs of commons). Also another "nice to have" would be to be able to delete single revisions. (This would probably have to be implented before the logging system could be done anyway :S, not sure) Unfortunately the English wikipedia is not the only project that uses the mediawiki engine. On 6/18/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Link: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted

On 6/18/07, Eagle 101 <eagle.wikien.l(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wait, we can't protect images? What's the point of c-uploaded, then? Rory

On 6/18/07, Eagle 101 &lt;eagle.wikien.l(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: See the source code of SpecialUpload.php (SVN available at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialUplo… ) /** * If the image is protected, non-sysop users won't be able * to modify it by uploading a new revision. */ if( !$nt->userCan( 'edit' ) ) { return $this->uploadError( wfMsgWikiHtml( 'protectedpage' ) ); } If an image is protected on Wikipedia, a new version can't be uploaded over it, and (of course) the image description itself can't be edited. If you try to upload an image over one that's protected, you'll get the contents of [[MediaWiki:Protectedpage]] thrown at you, surrounded by <span class="error"> and </span>. However, there is no way to have both the description editable by anyone and to prohibit uploads, which Eagle was possibly referring to. The current situation does not apply to uploading a local copy of an image protected on commons, and I don't think it works so well with cascading protection either (transcluding image description pages).

articles on AfD that I thought might get deleted but that I would want to try to improve and re-create, and stored it off wiki. I still do it. I have gone back and used a few for new articles, but most are still for use "when I have the time". (But I keep it inaccessible to Google.) I do something similar with email and other online services in my real work. It's been very useful there, once with respect to a malicious system administrator who went in and changed the metadata. On 6/18/07, jayjg &lt;jayjg99(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Slim Virgin wrote: Could you say more about the evidence for that? With 1200 admins, it seems equally plausible to me that there are ones that are willing to give copies of deleted revisions to anybody who has a reasonable reason for wanting to know. William

On 19/06/07, William Pietri &lt;william(a)scissor.com&gt; wrote: Yeah, lots of admins will do this for uncontroversial deletions. The problem is more controversial ones. - d.

On 6/20/07, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Nah things like hoaxes and zero impact bands. -- geni

jayjg wrote: I must have missed the excitement surrounding that. What was that admin account? And were there others? Thanks, William

As far as the cracked passwords, that happening again (at least vie the usual means of iterating through all possible passes or using a common pass list) will have a very hard time of succeeding due to the captchas put into place after the last incident. Regards, Eagle 101 On 6/18/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm &lt;macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: