andreengels wrote:

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.

wikipede wrote:

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.

paul wrote:

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.

robchur wrote:

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.

ayg wrote:

I believe this is resolved with the new oversight permission, so I'll FIXED it.

robchur wrote:

I disagree. This should be core functionality with custom grouping, not
something coming from an extension.

treauth wrote:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3576 ***

rotemliss wrote:

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.

robchur wrote:

*** Bug 9290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

robchur wrote:

*** Bug 9290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Done with Oversight.