Last modified: 2008-05-16 19:48:40 UTC
Hi, currently all deleted articles are stored in the database and are reachable for admins only. This specially means that all plagiarisms that were found and deleted are still reachable for all admins. This definitely is against law! We need to delete these articles (or article versions) physically. To do so a flag needs to be implemented that can be set by the deleting admin, that this article/version is deleted in cause of plagiarism. These marked articles/versions then can be physically deleted after some days automatically if no other admin reverts this flag. mijobe
I do not necessarily agree that having them admin-readable would be against the law. It could fall under the legality of making private copies, especially since the intention is not to do with whatever literary value the piece might have.
Sorry, but this is no "private" copy. In the german Wikipedia are more then 100 admins and the english more then 300 admins. It's more like an illegal copy for a company.
I think the term needed is to have an "expunge" function when needed for removal of content for specific legal reasons in which it cannot be allowed to remain on the system at all, primarily because of allegations of copyright violations. But a deletion should only come if it follows the rules (at least in the U.S.) for takedown which simply requires it not be publicly accessible. As I understand it, the law allows the allegedly infringing material to be archived in order to allow the party that posted it to provide a counter notice that the work is not infringing, and thus it can be restored (if it was removed). The law in the U.S. grants 10 days to remove content, and then if it is removed, if the person who posted it gives a counter notice, then the law grants 10 days to restore it. But because of this, it is legal to archive even truly infringing content in order to allow the party accused of infringement time to respond with a counter notice. Also, there are, I believe, grounds to restore removed content even if a notice of alleged infringement is made if no suit is filed within some period of time. Or if no settlement is demanded, or something. But there is a legitimate grounding in current law to archive on a generally inaccessible basis material even if it is claimed to be infringing to allow an anti-takedown notice to be effective.
Whenever Wikimedia gets a DMCA or similar takedown notice, I believe Jimbo passes it onto specific members of the development team in order to have it wiped from the database permanently.
I believe this is resolved with the new oversight permission, so I'll FIXED it.
I disagree. This should be core functionality with custom grouping, not something coming from an extension.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3576 ***
I don't think it's a duplicate: it's about a permanent deletion, while I don't think rev_deleted should be permanet (rev_deleted is just a flag which disables the view of the revision).
I believe that Oversight resolves this, though that is likely to be replaced with a more reversible system though.
*** Bug 9290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Done with Oversight.
