On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
> What I would hope for is guidance from the WMF Board that specifically > outlines when WMF invocation of superprotect is and isn't appropriate [1], > and which I believe is already being discussed internally by the Board. > With that done, my hope is that WMF will take a supportive approach to the > community, instead of a combative approach. > > With those changes made, I think that the likelihood of another conflict > between the community and WMF over a superprotect-like issue would be low. > Appropriate uses for Superprotect upon community or WMF request could > include (1) legally sensitive documents like the TOS, (2) technically > sensitive pages that would otherwise be exposed to administrators who can > edit through full protection and should only be edited with consensus, or > because of urgent security or stability considerations, (3) pages which are > currently the subject of wheel-warring among local administrators, and (4) > pages which are currently the subject of a legal dispute that requires a > level of protection greater than standard full protection. > > Pine > > [1] WMF's first use of Superprotect having been a serious misjudgement for > which I would like to hear them more fully recant and apologize, and which > I would like to see categorized as an inappropriate use of superprotect in > the upcoming guidance from the Board. > > Personally, I hope the Board has better things with which to occupy its time. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
