[Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role

[Wily D]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil
>>> <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>>>
ndation-l at 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 at 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