[Foundation-l] "seeall" privilege Was Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in dangeroflosing immunity under the Communications Decency Act

[Marco Chiesa]

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