Yes, well, I don't think this is as awesome as some people seem to.
I don't object to it, but the criteria for people to get it need to be strict. They should already have sysop access at at least one LARGE project, as well as other projects.
Thus, the fact that I have sysop privelages on several smaller Wikis does not mean that I can suddenly get this privelage to rollback on en.wp too, although Jesse is right that rollback isn't a big deal.
Mark
2008/5/29 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/29 Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Delete and undelete rights may very well be controversial, particularly on the English Wikipedia, where some deleted revisions that are not strictly "personal information", but may very well need to stay private, can be viewed by administrators. Perhaps the users are trusted globally, but this could be a serious concern, potentially.
To expand on my point as well, viewing deleted revisions is one of the few controversial administrative tasks that is not logged publicly, so this is even more of a concern.
And abuse of it is the entire reason Oversight exists.
Thanks, David. I was willing to say "than make the oversight action for problematic cases", but I was doubtful :)
The number of SWMT members will not reach 100 soon. There are 21 active members, including maybe 10 stewards. English Wikipedia has ~1500 admins and I am sure that 20-30 (1-2%) are not a big deal. Also, keep in mind that members of SWMT group are usually well known Wikimedians which passed much stronger criteria than for being an admin of one project (even the project is en.wp); usually, those persons are admins, bureaucrats etc. on more than one project, including Meta, too.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l