Requests for comment/Jimbo perms
 |  This page is currently a draft. More information pertaining to this may be available on the talk page. Translation admins: Normally, drafts should not be marked for translation. |
Should Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages?
Survey
[edit]- Yes, as proposer, as per [1]. Sandizer (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. Jimbo said about a day ago when you asked him, in general I don't think board members have any need or desire to see oversighted revisions - they are usually quite uninteresting to be honest. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Question: Could you please elaborate on the proposal? It's not clear what this RfC is about. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I will summarize when the discussion at Jimbo's enwiki talk page concludes. But in the mean time I would point out that the ability to ask someone else to show you deleted material is substantially different and weaker than the ability to see deleted material oneself. I am also in the process of preparing a disclosure-style list of vulnerabilities involved. Sandizer (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, I
Oppose for the same reasons as Novem Linguae. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm setting this as draft. An officially open RfC should be clear enough to allow equally clear opinions to be formulated. A question with so many unexplained implications is imho not a valid RfC and an RFC shouldn't be a simple referendum-style vote or poll. Once elaborated, please note that the title should be changed, "Jimbo perms" is not a clear matter! --Superpes15 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, for the reasons you stated and that I should have also included edit filter transparency as well. Sandizer (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm setting this as draft. An officially open RfC should be clear enough to allow equally clear opinions to be formulated. A question with so many unexplained implications is imho not a valid RfC and an RFC shouldn't be a simple referendum-style vote or poll. Once elaborated, please note that the title should be changed, "Jimbo perms" is not a clear matter! --Superpes15 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, I
- Yes I will summarize when the discussion at Jimbo's enwiki talk page concludes. But in the mean time I would point out that the ability to ask someone else to show you deleted material is substantially different and weaker than the ability to see deleted material oneself. I am also in the process of preparing a disclosure-style list of vulnerabilities involved. Sandizer (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This seems to be some grudge escalated out of control, but the basic principle of user rights, especially those as sensitive as oversight, is that we don't grant them to people who don't want them. * Pppery * it has begun 18:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assure you this has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of grudge! Sandizer (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, board members are high level people who have little or no knowledge of most of our hundreds of editing communities, their languages and their social and other norms. Giving them access to highly sensitive information without ensuring they are aware of its context is just asking for trouble. Kusma (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose they don't need this permission. --TenWhile6 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)