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

[Waerth]

Jimbo was almost desysopped on nl.wiki on the same arguments a few years 
ago. Nothing special there. Anthere, Jimbo and Eloquence would never 
pass the sysopvote on nl: You have to be a saint to pass those. To many 
nitpicking individuals.

Waerth


> It.wp does not know how to bend the rules?
> That *is* shocking! :D
>
> John
>
> Marco Chiesa skrev:
>   
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>