https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60373
--- Comment #13 from James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> --- (In reply to comment #4) > Nonetheless, I strongly encourage an advance communication strategy (perhaps > using the community liaisons) to all Wikimedia projects where there are > oversighted edits. When the extension was in use, it was broadly and publicly > advertised as "permanent removal" I feel that the burden for this communication should lie on the shoulders of the individuals who misled the community in this way. Certainly, when we developed the OS tool (whilst I was on ArbCom), we were careful to note that the information was not actually removed from the database entirely, and that it was theoretically open to sub poena and viewing by people with special access, but that it was beyond the reach of mere administrators. > there is good reason to anticipate some negative reaction if there isn't > solid communication in advance. Quite possibly. I'd suggest that the community 'functionaries' be alerted and asked to inform their communities. After all, they own the responsibility for keeping abreast of privileged rights; on enwiki this is ArbCom. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
