[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Pedantry on privileges

[Anthony]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Wow, so he's able to delete content on *one* of the 200+ languages of
> > Wikipedia.  I'd still say the statement is substantially correct.  He
> used
> > to have unlimited power on every project to do anything.  Now he's
> > administrator on one project, and has the ability to view certain things
> > that other people can't view on every project.
> [snip]
>
> This is absolutely no different than any of the several other
> incidents where a sysadmin or the like had the technical ability to do
> something, did it, then were reminded that having the technical
> ability to do it doesn't actually equate to having the _authority_ to
> do it, and as a result they resigned that particular technical ability
> in order to end a perpetual argument that arises because 'okay I won't
> do it again' doesn't satisfy a broad enough swath of people.
> (I'll leave it to people to muckrake up these events for themselves,
> but there have been a couple that I can think of, I don't think it
> would be fair to the involved parties to remind people of them)
>

Well, it's different in that it's the founder of the organization, the
technical ability was the highest given to anyone, that it was used several
times in the past (even more boldly) with impunity, etc.

Probing the bounds of your actual authority in our environment is a
> necessary thing that all of us do with every BOLD action, it's a
> consequence of the generally non-hierarchical nature of the projects.
> So I don't think it's justified to flog someone forever when they
> cross a line that was apparently obvious to everyone except them,
> especially since these things tend to seem far more black and white
> after the fact.
>

What was the line that was crossed?  It wasn't unilateral deletion.  Wales
has done that and more in the past, blocking and deadminning people who
deemed to question his asserted authority, and he's gotten away with it.
But this time, it was different.

In any case, I'd say it's newsworthy, in a way that no other deadminship
ever came close to being.


> Keep in mind the history of the founder privileged. It's a very recent
> thing:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Jimbo_Wales
>
> For the longest time, Jimmy was just a steward— presumably with all
> the rights and restrictions that being a steward entails, such as
> having the technical ability to delete things anywhere but only the
> authority to do so with the consent (or, equivalently, complete
> indifference) of the involved community.
>

I'll have to check the records, but I believe Jimbo used his powers
"unilaterally", beyond that of a normal steward, before granting himself the
founder flag.  In fact, I seem to remember the founder flag being invented
in response to some questions over whether or not he had the authority to do
certain things.

But I'll have to check the records, unless you can remember what it is I'm
thinking of.

"19:10, 14 September 2008 Jimbo
Wales<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>
(Talk <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales> |
contribs<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales>
) blocked Moulton <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton>
(Talk<http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&action=edit&redlink=1>|
contribs <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moulton>)with
an expiry time of
infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Incivility)"

That predates the founder flag, right?