John at Darkstar ha scritto:
If they can grant themselves the privilege, then it is no use of a new user role. If the purpose is to avoid a situation where those users can be said to edit in an editorial role, then it could possibly block some cases whereby someone claims we don't get cover from section 230 of the CDA.
I'd say the main difference is that there are no logs for reading deleted revisions, but there are if user rights are changed. Which means: if Steward A assigns herself sysop rights on project B and performs no sysop action, people may just wonder why. With a separate user group, nothing is visible.
Other than that, I think it is wise to make any interference from outside the communities as visual and transparent as possible. That includes any interference from WMF into separate language projects on Wikipedia. Wetter that means if Jimbo operates as steward on nowp to do some work there, or if Eric does it as a admin or if Florence does it as a regular user I don't really care. I know they do a good job anyhow. What I do care about is if someone has invisible rights and may come and go unnoticed.
If Jimbo, Eric or Florence wants to be admin on no.wp on a permanent basis I guess we can put them up as candidates on the admin list and they will have a lot of users voting for them! :D
Uhm, I guess they couldn't qualify on it.wp (not enough edits probably), or that many people would vote against them as not sufficiently active... I guess that would be quite embarrassing anyway
Cruccone