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

[Brian McNeil]

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 at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l