Last modified: 2008-05-16 19:48:40 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 997 - Allow permanent deletion of revisions (when dealing with copyright infringement, etc.)
Allow permanent deletion of revisions (when dealing with copyright infringeme...
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
All All
: High enhancement with 5 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on: 3576
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-12-04 10:37 UTC by mijobe
Modified: 2008-05-16 19:48 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description mijobe 2004-12-04 10:37:10 UTC

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.

Comment 1 Andre Engels 2004-12-04 10:41:36 UTC
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.
Comment 2 mijobe 2004-12-04 10:44:23 UTC
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.
Comment 3 Paul Robinson 2005-05-08 07:27:03 UTC
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.
Comment 4 Rob Church 2005-12-15 18:01:18 UTC
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.
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-06-16 05:53:45 UTC
I believe this is resolved with the new oversight permission, so I'll FIXED it.
Comment 6 Rob Church 2006-06-16 12:13:11 UTC
I disagree. This should be core functionality with custom grouping, not
something coming from an extension.
Comment 7 treauth 2006-12-17 10:30:18 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3576 ***
Comment 8 Rotem Liss 2006-12-17 10:34:15 UTC
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).
Comment 9 Aaron Schulz 2007-02-19 03:18:27 UTC
I believe that Oversight resolves this, though that is likely to be replaced
with a more reversible system though.
Comment 10 Rob Church 2007-03-15 09:45:03 UTC
*** Bug 9290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 Rob Church 2007-03-15 11:52:52 UTC
*** Bug 9290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-16 19:48:40 UTC
Done with Oversight.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.