Please, discuss at the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-vandal_fighter
* * * * *
{{proposal}}
'''Anti-vandal fighter''' is a global role on [[Wikimedia]] projects. They have permissions on all Wikimedia projects comparable with [[administrator]] rights on particular projects which they are using at the projects without ''enough'' active administrators.
== Design ==
While anti-vandal fighters should have similar permissions to administrators, their role is not to maintain wikis at the regular basis, like wiki administrators are doing. Their role is to fight against vandals and to allow to the community at a particular project to take care about their own wiki. Because of that, while anti-vandal fighters need and have permissions like deleting pages and blocking users, they don't need and don't have permissions like "Mark others' edits as patrolled", which is generally a feature which every administrator should have.
== Permissions ==
This is the list of permissions with explanations which '''anti-vandal fighters''' have.
=== Editing permissions === * '''Edit semi-protected pages''': This is a permission which has every [[registered user]] after 4 days of the time when account is registered. However, it may be useful to give to anti-vandal fighters this permission explicitly because of possible technical problems. * '''Edit other users' CSS and JS files''': As it is assumed that anti-vandal fighters are technically skilled contributors, they may help to other contributors in fixing their CSS and JS files. * '''Move pages''': Similarly as the option from the first paragraph. * '''Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page''': This is "rollback" function. One of the most important permissions for anti-vandal fighters.
=== Delete / undelete and protection premissions === * '''Delete pages''': Vandals and destructive users are making (nonsense) pages often. * '''Mass delete pages''': This may be very useful to anti-vandal fighters. <small>As far as the proposer of this policy understands, the number deleted pages is limited. However, if a vandal already made a very large number of pages, anti-vandal fighter should be able to delete them with or without help of a program.</small> * '''Change protection levels and edit protected pages''': Anti-vandal fighter should be able to protect and unprotect pages. * '''Overwrite an existing file''': This is useful when some vandal made mess by moving pages. * '''Undelete a page''': While this is the only option for undeleting pages, anti-vandal fighers should have this permission. As the only reason for undeleting pages is to fix their own mistakenly deleted page, when/if the permission "undelete if I deleted" start to exist, the new permission should substitute the old one.
=== Blocking permissions === * '''Block other users from editing''': This permission will be obsolete when centralized blocking system starts to work. After that, anti-vandal fighters will work on centralized blocking system together with [[stewards]]. * '''Block a user from sending email''': The same as previous. *
=== Other functions === * '''Purge the site cache for a page without confirmation''': This is a permission with has every [[registered user]]. However, it is useful to force such permission because of possible technical problems.
== Policy for requesting anti-vandal fighter status ==
An admin of any Wikimedia project, following the requirements listed below, can request being an anti-vandal fighter. * Having been a participant for at least 2 months on at least one project other than Meta (at least 100 contributions in the last two months). * Having a user page on Meta, with link(s) to a local project user page, and a valid contact address (registered and valid wikipedia email address in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page) * Being (or perhaps having been some time ago) an active contributor on Meta (more than 100 contributions) * Being a sysop, bureaucrat or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related project
The request shall be done on [[Requests for anti-vandal fighter status]]. A time for opinion of at least one week will be given. The candidate will be named sysop here only if they are approved by a qualified majority of at least 75%. All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate and give their opinion on the candidate. In case of an opposition, enough people must speak for the candidate for them to become sysop on Meta.
If the candidate becomes an anti-vandal fighter, they should add their name to the anti-vandal fighters list, and ensure they keep a valid user name page, links to at least one other project, and valid contact. Anti-vandal fighters not respecting these rules will loose their privileges.
See also: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=UserName&db...
== Permission usage ==
Anti-vandal fighter should deal '''only''' with projects which don't have enough of active administrators in a particular time frame. If some wiki doesn't have administrators, they should take care about it all of the time. If another wiki doesn't have administrators just in some parts of the day (like night ours in a specific time zone are), they should take care about those wikis in those times.
Even their permissions are global, anti-vandal fighters are not allowed to use their rights on any developed project (e.g. [[w:|Wikipedia in English]]) without explicitly asking the community, even for usage of rollback permission. Anti-vandal fighters not respecting this rule will loose their privileges '''immediately'''.
== Discussion and policy adoption ==
This page is a proposal and it should be discussed before adopted. If the discussion goes normally, it should be finished at June 15th at 23:59, after which the community should vote about the policy adoption.
=== Discussion ===
We should discuss about all issues related to this policy. <small>Please, fix proposal's English, too :)</small>
=== Voting ===
For successful adoption of the policy the next conditions are necessary:
* at least 30 votes in favor; * at least 80% overall votes in favor, with neutral votes not counting toward the overall total;
Right to vote has every Wikimedian with at least 500 edits on all projects and 100 edits on all projects in the period January 1st, 2008 -- May 31st 2008.
{{user classes}}
[[Category:Policy proposals]]
Stewards and meta contributors generally agreed about the proposed policy. Until now there is only one explicit objection (without more explanations). So, if you want to participate in policy creation, please go to [1].
As it seems that we agreed about the policy, we are talking now about the name of the role. There are proposals like: Global maintenance, Cross-wiki maintenance, keeper, watcher, janitor, Global janitor, globetrotter, traveler, vandalism cleaner, global helper, global assistant, nomad, monitor. So, if you have a good idea, please go there and suggest, discuss etc.
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-vandal_fighter
Proposal got one well explained objection (actually, a group of asks for limiting rights of the role of AVf). While I think that objections are paranoid (which I explained there), it would be good to hear what do others think about that.
See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-vandal_fighter#Exempting_projects
As we've got enough proposals and we already said enough, poll is ready. Please, go to [1] and vote for one or more of your favorite names.
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-vandal_fighter#Poll
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
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
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
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
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.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
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.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
If the logs show that several people have accessed th page how can you know which one was responsible for the leak?
Ec
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
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.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
If the logs show that several people have accessed th page how can you know which one was responsible for the leak?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Stuff that is worth leaking should probably be oversighted since that is what the tool was made for.
Bryan
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
ndation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu>>>> 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.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
If the logs show that several people have accessed th page how can you know which one was responsible for the leak?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Stuff that is worth leaking should probably be oversighted since that is what the tool was made for.
Bryan
Oversighting is covered by a specific policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight and (at least on English Wikipedia) Oversighters won't go outside of it (at least, anymore). You would be agast to know what they'll decline to oversight.
WilyD
I too think that that policy is too narrow. It lacks one essential point: "use common sense". That ought to do the trick.
2008/6/11, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
ndation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu>>>> 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.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
If the logs show that several people have accessed th page how can you know which one was responsible for the leak?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Stuff that is worth leaking should probably be oversighted since that is what the tool was made for.
Bryan
Oversighting is covered by a specific policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight and (at least on English Wikipedia) Oversighters won't go outside of it (at least, anymore). You would be agast to know what they'll decline to oversight.
WilyD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Apparently those who believe that common sense is enough are limited to you and I[1] - everyone else needs reams and reams of instructions to be satisfied that people won't abuse tools. If we're choosing people for their judgment, and we do it well enough, then a simply guideline should be sufficient (rather than bloated instructions like we're currently developing)
Mike [1] That is a rhetorical device since there plainly /are/ others in this category. But that doesn't make my point quite as well.
-----Original Message----- From: Jon Harald Søby [mailto:jhsoby@gmail.com] Sent: June 11, 2008 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role
I too think that that policy is too narrow. It lacks one essential point: "use common sense". That ought to do the trick.
2008/6/11, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
ndation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu>>>> 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.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
If the logs show that several people have accessed th page how can you know which one was responsible for the leak?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Stuff that is worth leaking should probably be oversighted since that is what the tool was made for.
Bryan
Oversighting is covered by a specific policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight and (at least on English Wikipedia) Oversighters won't go outside of it (at least, anymore). You would be agast to know what they'll decline to oversight.
WilyD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently those who believe that common sense is enough are limited to you and I[1] - everyone else needs reams and reams of instructions to be satisfied that people won't abuse tools. If we're choosing people for their judgment, and we do it well enough, then a simply guideline should be sufficient (rather than bloated instructions like we're currently developing)
Mike
I agree completely with you here and have actually commented to that effect on the talk page. There are pages and pages of rules relating to this... and all these "requirements" that are (or were) heavily based on editcountitis... but whatever. :-)
2008/6/11 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
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?
For now, I think we can make do with simply asking people to be good. With a couple of exceptions, it's worked so far.
Incidentally, I'm a little confused. Does existing enwp policy explictly say that? I've always understood that looking up deleted content and passing it on is fine (and indeed vaguely encouraged in some cases), as long as that content was deleted because we didn't want it rather than because it's Inherently Nasty Stuff.
(This demonstrates the problem of making a rule to deal with bad cases: it can potentially impinge on a lot of trivial but perfectly acceptable cases...)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/6/11 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
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?
For now, I think we can make do with simply asking people to be good. With a couple of exceptions, it's worked so far.
Incidentally, I'm a little confused. Does existing enwp policy explictly say that? I've always understood that looking up deleted content and passing it on is fine (and indeed vaguely encouraged in some cases), as long as that content was deleted because we didn't want it rather than because it's Inherently Nasty Stuff.
(This demonstrates the problem of making a rule to deal with bad cases: it can potentially impinge on a lot of trivial but perfectly acceptable cases...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
In most cases, administraters can and do disseminate deleted materials within the terms of the GFDL. Things that are libelous or copyright violations should not be so distributed, as well as a few other judgement calls probably, as the situation warrents.
WilyD
2008/6/11 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
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.
What are 'third parties' here? Surely if you cannot tell anyone what content a deleted page has, there is little point in looking.
There is a world of difference between telling another contributor the content of a deleted page and, say, passing it to ValleyWag or Wikileaks. In the cases I have in mind, the "breach" was passing the information to a third party which would publicly promote it.
There is the possibility someone could have saved the content prior to its deletion, or retrieved a version from their browser cache. However, it seems more likely that someone used administrative privileges to retrieve the content to pass on to Wikileaks.
Of the two articles on Wikinews that I am referring to, one was likely libel and could perhaps have been oversighted. The other should be restored in the course of time and brought up to date. The restoration is dependent on the conclusion of a court case, and as was stressed to me, the publication on Wikinews potentially put WMF staff in the position of having given misleading information to the court.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: 12 June 2008 02:17 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role
2008/6/11 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
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.
What are 'third parties' here? Surely if you cannot tell anyone what content a deleted page has, there is little point in looking.
There is two and half days before the voting. Please, take a look at the policy again. If you have some objections to some parts of it, it is the last time for saying so.
Voting for the policy adoption starts at Metapub [1] this midnight, June 16th, 2008 (at 00:00 UTC) and lasts up to June 30th, 2008 at 23:59 UTC. Policy proposal may be found at [2] and extensive talk about the policy proposal may be found at [3].
For successful adoption of this policy the following conditions are necessary:
* at least 30 votes in favor; * at least 80% overall votes in favor, with neutral votes not counting toward the overall total;
Any Wikimedian with at least 500 edits (across all projects) '''total''', and at least 100 edits (across all projects) '''between January 1 - May 31, 2008''' may vote. Voter should have an existing user page at meta with a link to at least one content project. Comments are welcome from all, but those not qualifying to vote, will not have their votes counted.
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub#Global_sysops_.28poll.29 [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_sysops
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org