There is one issue from the GRU policy proposal I have ported from Wikipedia. It specifies that those with the right to view deleted contributions should not do so in order to disseminate the content of the deleted contributions to third parties.
How do we know? There is no log of who views deleted pages except for whatever Brion and the other devs can access. Do we need such a log?
This is an interesting issue for Wikinews as two controversial deleted articles were passed to Wikileaks. I doubt knowing who accessed the deleted content would get us any closer to knowing who was responsible for the leak, but it would narrow the field.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Brian McNeil Sent: 11 June 2008 11:53 To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role
I have started [[n:WN:GRU]] based on the WP page and requested discussion on-project for it.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#WN:GRU
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Milos Rancic Sent: 11 June 2008 06:03 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Cc: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role
We have the new name for the proposed role: After 7 days of voting, "global sysop" got the most of votes [1].
Thanks to all participants, policy proposal got a lot of details.
Now, we have pages which describe more precise where and how global sysops may and should act [2][3]. Pages are in development, but it seems that we found a good initial formula.
* Wikis are grouped to small and large. * If the wiki has one of the next two requirements, it is considered as a big one: ** Has CUs. ** Has at least 50,000 articles *and* more than 10 active admins. * Other wikis are considered small [only] by default. It is clear that Wikinews, for example, are not able to have 50,000 articles in a couple of years, but some of them (particularly, en, pl and de) are mature enough. (However, en.wn has CUs.) So, we will talk about border cases with particular communities.
The main difference in global sysops actions between small and large wikis is that global sysops will be able to have full access to small wikis, while communities at large wikis have to be asked for permissions usage. By default, global sysops wouldn't be able to use any of their permissions (even the "rollback" permission) at any large wiki.
Thanks to a couple of contributors, the English Wikipedia started with defining the rules around global roles [4]. It would be good to see other projects to define their relation toward global sysops (please, write policy in English!).
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_sysops#Poll [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops/Wikis [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops/Small_and_large_wikis [4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Global_rights_usage
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l