Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

If WMF decides to completely remove Superprotect and the Board's
forthcoming policy prohibits the reintroduction of Superprotect without
Board authorization, I won't object to that outcome.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Richard Farmbrough]

Thanks for the (single) use case: Trouble is it just  pushes the 
question further down the road.


inadequate for some compelling reason 

On 13/08/2015 09:25, Pine W wrote:

A*few*  legitimate use cases could be:

*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to
prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that
admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of
a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would
proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work,
or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a
temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an
edit themselves.

*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those
pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.

*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of
WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and
normal full protection is inadequate for some  compelling reason.

None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would
prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the
hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.

Pine



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Richard Farmbrough]

Not a good example.   This could be a special page.

On 11/08/2015 21:56, Risker wrote:

There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
Individual communities cannot change that (it applies globally), and
individual administrators should not modify it. If there is a problem with
translation, that needs to be brought to the attention of the WMF, because
there may be a similar problem with translation elsewhere.

There are also some examples currently being discussed on the Wikitech-L
list that may require significantly elevated levels of protection above
'all administrators on Project ABC', although they may call for another
level of protection that can be customizable to allowing a much smaller
group or specific individuals to be the only editors.

Risker/Anne




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Richard Farmbrough]

Using it for legal disputes is poor form.  We had legal disputes before, 
and managed them with office actions.  If you don't trust the admins 
not to  purposefully post libel or copyvios, then super-protecting a 
page or two won't help.


Moreover it implies that the Foundation can or will take action in these 
matters to override the community, which opens them up to charges of 
discrimination, favouritism, nepotism, cowardice, corruption or at least 
stupidity.



On 11/08/2015 19:36, John Lewis wrote:
Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item 
on Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several 
pages following legal disputes. Superprotect in my opinion if used 
correctly is an essential tool which can prevent legal and technical 
issues that can in theory cause wide disruption. John 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Richard Farmbrough]

No community would want to change documents issued by the WMF, if it 
did, the stewards would be crazy to do so.


This is reaching.

Why?

On 11/08/2015 22:34, Risker wrote:

However, stewards under their current
process could very well find themselves in a situation where a community
wants to do something, like change the (global) terms of use or the
(global) interpretation of copyright policyat which point their current
rules put them smack in the middle of the global community and WMF board
that approved a global policy, and a local community that wants to have its
own.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Hong, Yongmin]

(snip)

 A use of superprotect could be to protect certain pages or settings
against
 actions stemming from the hypothetical but possible scenario that an admin
 account is compromised.


If the setting is so dangerous that it will cause SERIOUS problem if
misconfigured, why is it editable by admins at all? it should be in
operations/mediawiki-config.git and should be touched by developers only
via gerrit.

(snip)

--
Revi
https://revi.me
--sent from Android
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Peter Southwood]

Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool 
if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a bit 
pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access 
to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may 
do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we 
all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done 
differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the 
responsibility.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

A few legitimate use cases could be:

*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to 
prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that 
admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a 
successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would 
proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or 
taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a 
temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit 
themselves.

*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those 
pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.

*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF 
Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full 
protection is inadequate for some  compelling reason.

None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would 
prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the 
hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

A few legitimate use cases could be:

*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to
prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that
admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of
a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would
proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work,
or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a
temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an
edit themselves.

*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those
pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.

*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of
WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and
normal full protection is inadequate for some  compelling reason.

None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would
prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the
hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Robert Rohde]

No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or
something like it.  Removing the tool from the software would be more a
symbolic measure than anything.

In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it
(or only use it under conditions agreed upon in consultation with the
editor communities).  Building such an agreement could have benefits for
WMF-Community relations, whereas misuse of the tool would be detrimental to
community relations.  Though intangible, those relationships are important,
and the WMF appreciates that there is value there that should be considered.

So, no, we can't force the WMF to respect our wishes, but we can hope that
they will work with us because a good relationship between the WMF and the
editor community is important for both groups.

-Robert Rohde

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Peter Southwood 
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:

 Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the
 tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a
 bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and
 complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they
 will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is
 doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the
 fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who
 authorises the action takes the responsibility.
 Cheers,
 Peter

 -Original Message-
 From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
 wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W
 Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

 A few legitimate use cases could be:

 *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to
 prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that
 admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of
 a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would
 proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work,
 or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a
 temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an
 edit themselves.

 *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those
 pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.

 *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request
 of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and
 normal full protection is inadequate for some  compelling reason.

 None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would
 prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the
 hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.

 Pine
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 -
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

The general trend in the past few months has been for WMF to be more
respectful and supportive of the community, and I hope that this trend
continues (for example, by empowering the grantmaking committees with more
discretion and leadership responsibilities, and by placing more emphasis on
supporting small affiliates that show growth potential).

The WMF Board could legislate that no one on the WMF staff may invoke
superprotect directly, and all superprotect-related actions must be
reviewed and applied by a steward. (I am assuming that stewards will agree
to implement superprotect actions that WMF is required to undertake for
legal reasons). I do think that such a policy would improve WMF's
relationship with the community.

Pine
On Aug 13, 2015 2:19 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:

 No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or
 something like it.  Removing the tool from the software would be more a
 symbolic measure than anything.

 In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it
 (or only use it under conditions agreed upon in consultation with the
 editor communities).  Building such an agreement could have benefits for
 WMF-Community relations, whereas misuse of the tool would be detrimental to
 community relations.  Though intangible, those relationships are important,
 and the WMF appreciates that there is value there that should be
 considered.

 So, no, we can't force the WMF to respect our wishes, but we can hope that
 they will work with us because a good relationship between the WMF and the
 editor community is important for both groups.

 -Robert Rohde

 On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Peter Southwood 
 peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:

  Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the
  tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems
 a
  bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and
  complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they
  will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is
  doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the
  fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who
  authorises the action takes the responsibility.
  Cheers,
  Peter
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
  wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W
  Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM
  To: Wikimedia Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
 
  A few legitimate use cases could be:
 
  *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages,
 to
  prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is
 that
  admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood
 of
  a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would
  proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work,
  or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request
 for a
  temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an
  edit themselves.
 
  *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where
 those
  pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
 
  *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request
  of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and
  normal full protection is inadequate for some  compelling reason.
 
  None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I
 would
  prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in
 the
  hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.
 
  Pine
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
  -
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date:
 08/13/15
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[MZMcBride]

Pine W wrote:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to
prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that
admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood
of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would
proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work,
or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for
a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an
edit themselves.

*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those
pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.

*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request
of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and
normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.

And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify
this misfeature's existence, in my opinion.

I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead
decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios.
In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest
that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages
instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm
boggling pretty hard at your reply here.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

Hi,

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I needed to re-read my comments before
I realized that they could be read the way that you seemed to have done,
and I apologize if I was unclear. If an admin account becomes compromised,
the current procedures for locking that account would apply.

A use of superprotect could be to protect certain pages or settings against
actions stemming from the hypothetical but possible scenario that an admin
account is compromised.

I hope that I've made my position clear now. I think that I've spoken my
share in this thread, so my intent is to be quiet for the moment so that
others can have airtime. If you have additional questions for me about this
thread, please contact me off list.

Thanks,
Pine
On Aug 13, 2015 6:54 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Pine W wrote:
 *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to
 prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that
 admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood
 of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would
 proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work,
 or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for
 a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an
 edit themselves.
 
 *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those
 pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
 
 *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request
 of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and
 normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.

 And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify
 this misfeature's existence, in my opinion.

 I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead
 decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios.
 In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest
 that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages
 instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm
 boggling pretty hard at your reply here.

 MZMcBride



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Lucas Teles]

How would superprotect be used in a legal situation and how would that be
different from any other way that community and WMF have found to deal with
that without the tool in the past? Can somebody provide a hyphotethical
example please?

Is WMF willing to discuss with community how superprotect should be used?
That was done before for other important policies and avoiding to explain
this apparent unwillingness to openly discuss that does not leave a good
impression, especially concerning the obscure ways on its creation and the
fact it was created in order to make part of a wiki community... which is
very contrasting. That maybe wouldn't disallow its creation, but just
enforces a better procedure and more talking.

Regards.


*Lucas Teles*

*Steward at Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator *
*at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*Visit my blog:
wikipedista.com http://wikipedista.com
Contact me:
[image: Facebook] http://www.facebook.com/telesr  Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/telesr 
[image: Twitter] http://www.twitter.com/Lucas_Teles  Twitter
https://twitter.com/Lucas_Teles 
Mobile:  55 71 9374 2725 
I am a Wikimedia volunteer.
Wikimedia Foundation can not be held responsible for my actions.

2015-08-12 11:17 GMT-03:00 Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-w...@live.com:

 We all know for what the tool was initially created. I am not sure if it
  is ethically okay to keep status quo. Maybe it is time to move on and
 remove the tool or to start a RFC to see if the community want the tool?
  :-)

 Not advocating - just some thoughts and either way here... :)


 Regards,
 Steinsplitter

 No comment about Gerard Meijssen's  grin comment. It is explaining
 itself perfectly.

  Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:37 +1000
  From: cfrank...@halonetwork.net
  To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
 
  On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote:
 
   ... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...
 
 
  I'm not sure I agree with that.  There are two known uses.  The first
 one,
  where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community
 was
  a bad usage I'll agree; if anything the hamfisted way that the whole
  situation was handled just made matters much worse.  The second use,
  locking a page on Wikidata where serious outages were being caused to
  another project, strikes me as a far more reasonable use of the tool.
 The
  fact that that usage seems to have been largely unknown until today, and
  didn't garner any controversy, seems to indicate to me that the community
  doesn't find it to be a troubling case.
 
  I'm all for having a discussion over the community's expectations on when
  this tool will be used, but let us not walk down a path of hyperbole and
  exaggeration.
 
  Cheers,
  Craig
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Tito Dutta]

On 12 August 2015 at 10:11, Bohdan Melnychuk  wrote:

 I would trust such tool only in hands of stewards, not WMF

--
​ ​I can not remember when I last saw a steward action on the En WP.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Tito Dutta]

On 12 August 2015 at 19:46, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

 Hoi,
 In case of a legal situation. Taking a position like superprotecting
 means that you take on a liability. When you do this as part of a job, it
 is different from doing it as a volunteer.

--
​ The only difference I can understand is tha​t the stewards/admins and
their knowledge, skills and decision-taking power have been tested or
verified​ by the community. We can not say the same thing for *all* WMF
employees.




 On 11 August 2015 at 22:17, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

  Can you clarify what you mean? If there are legal reasons for
  superprotecting a page, I think that the stewards could handle that.
 
  Pine
 
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
  gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
   Hoi,
   grin did you consider the legal ramnifications ?
   Thanks, /grin
GerardM
  
   On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
  
My preference would be to have stewards applying Superprotect rather
  than
WMF. There are cases where Superprotect makes sense, but given WMF's
history with it, I would prefer that it become a community tool.
   
Pine
   
   
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske 
magnusman...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
   
 So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism,
 if
future
 usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?

 Not advocating either way here...

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
  dar...@alk.edu.pl
 wrote:

  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis 
  johnflewi...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  
   Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the
 Germany
   item
 on
   Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several
   pages
   following legal disputes.
  
   Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential
 tool
which
  can
   prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause
 wide
   disruption.
  
  
  In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a
potential
 to
  be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how
  it
can
 be
  used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
 justified
  concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the
   next
  anniversary or earlier :)
 
  best,
 
  dariusz pundit
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  

   
  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe:
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
  ?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe:
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
   
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Tito Dutta]

On 13 August 2015 at 06:51, Lucas Teles  wrote:

 How would superprotect be used in a legal situation and how would that be
 different from any other way that community and WMF have found to deal with
 that without the tool in the past? Can somebody provide a hyphotethical
 example please?

 Is WMF willing to discuss with community how superprotect should be used?



​In my personal opinion, answer to ​all your question is No.
Superprotect is a part of OA (Office Action:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions)

(No, I am not endorsing the use of SuperProtect), I think WMF has kept it
as a tool of OA (OfficeAction) to handle some of the most complicated
situation which often lead to problematic legal issues.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

That sounds reasonable.

 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:14:58 -0700
 From: wiki.p...@gmail.com
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
 
 My preference would be to have stewards applying Superprotect rather than
 WMF. There are cases where Superprotect makes sense, but given WMF's
 history with it, I would prefer that it become a community tool.
 
 Pine
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
  wrote:
 
  So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism, if future
  usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?
 
  Not advocating either way here...
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
  wrote:
 
   On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
   
Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item
  on
Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several pages
following legal disputes.
   
Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool which
   can
prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
disruption.
   
   
   In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a potential
  to
   be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it can
  be
   used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
  justified
   concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the next
   anniversary or earlier :)
  
   best,
  
   dariusz pundit
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
  
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Craig Franklin]

On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote:

 ... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...


I'm not sure I agree with that.  There are two known uses.  The first one,
where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community was
a bad usage I'll agree; if anything the hamfisted way that the whole
situation was handled just made matters much worse.  The second use,
locking a page on Wikidata where serious outages were being caused to
another project, strikes me as a far more reasonable use of the tool.  The
fact that that usage seems to have been largely unknown until today, and
didn't garner any controversy, seems to indicate to me that the community
doesn't find it to be a troubling case.

I'm all for having a discussion over the community's expectations on when
this tool will be used, but let us not walk down a path of hyperbole and
exaggeration.

Cheers,
Craig
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

We all know for what the tool was initially created. I am not sure if it
 is ethically okay to keep status quo. Maybe it is time to move on and 
remove the tool or to start a RFC to see if the community want the tool?
 :-)

Not advocating - just some thoughts and either way here... :)


Regards,
Steinsplitter

No comment about Gerard Meijssen's  grin comment. It is explaining itself 
perfectly.

 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:37 +1000
 From: cfrank...@halonetwork.net
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
 
 On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote:
 
  ... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...
 
 
 I'm not sure I agree with that.  There are two known uses.  The first one,
 where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community was
 a bad usage I'll agree; if anything the hamfisted way that the whole
 situation was handled just made matters much worse.  The second use,
 locking a page on Wikidata where serious outages were being caused to
 another project, strikes me as a far more reasonable use of the tool.  The
 fact that that usage seems to have been largely unknown until today, and
 didn't garner any controversy, seems to indicate to me that the community
 doesn't find it to be a troubling case.
 
 I'm all for having a discussion over the community's expectations on when
 this tool will be used, but let us not walk down a path of hyperbole and
 exaggeration.
 
 Cheers,
 Craig
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In case of a legal situation. Taking a position like superprotecting
means that you take on a liability. When you do this as part of a job, it
is different from doing it as a volunteer. Insisting on having this done by
stewards means insisting on their vulnerability..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 11 August 2015 at 22:17, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can you clarify what you mean? If there are legal reasons for
 superprotecting a page, I think that the stewards could handle that.

 Pine


 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Hoi,
  grin did you consider the legal ramnifications ?
  Thanks, /grin
   GerardM
 
  On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   My preference would be to have stewards applying Superprotect rather
 than
   WMF. There are cases where Superprotect makes sense, but given WMF's
   history with it, I would prefer that it become a community tool.
  
   Pine
  
  
   On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske 
   magnusman...@googlemail.com
wrote:
  
So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism, if
   future
usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?
   
Not advocating either way here...
   
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
 dar...@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
   
 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis 
 johnflewi...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 
  Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany
  item
on
  Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several
  pages
  following legal disputes.
 
  Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool
   which
 can
  prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
  disruption.
 
 
 In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a
   potential
to
 be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how
 it
   can
be
 used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
justified
 concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the
  next
 anniversary or earlier :)

 best,

 dariusz pundit
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 
   
  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org

 Unsubscribe:
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
   
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Risker]

There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
Individual communities cannot change that (it applies globally), and
individual administrators should not modify it. If there is a problem with
translation, that needs to be brought to the attention of the WMF, because
there may be a similar problem with translation elsewhere.

There are also some examples currently being discussed on the Wikitech-L
list that may require significantly elevated levels of protection above
'all administrators on Project ABC', although they may call for another
level of protection that can be customizable to allowing a much smaller
group or specific individuals to be the only editors.

Risker/Anne


On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect

 If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this usage
 at this talk page to keep an overview in future.

 Greetings,
 Romaine

 2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:

  Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
   Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:
It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
merged
and deployed to the dewiki.
  
   And it's high time it got removed.
  
   Laurentius
  
  
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
  
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Ricordisamoa]

I trust administrators not to edit pages they shouldn't.

Il 11/08/2015 22:56, Risker ha scritto:

There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
Individual communities cannot change that (it applies globally), and
individual administrators should not modify it. If there is a problem with
translation, that needs to be brought to the attention of the WMF, because
there may be a similar problem with translation elsewhere.

There are also some examples currently being discussed on the Wikitech-L
list that may require significantly elevated levels of protection above
'all administrators on Project ABC', although they may call for another
level of protection that can be customizable to allowing a much smaller
group or specific individuals to be the only editors.

Risker/Anne


On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:


So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect

If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this usage
at this talk page to keep an overview in future.

Greetings,
Romaine

2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:


Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
wrote:


Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:

It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
merged
and deployed to the dewiki.

And it's high time it got removed.

Laurentius



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

Most of the time, admins behave as we would hope. Occasionally they don't,
and on English Wikipedia when that happens often enough or seriously enough
in the opinion of Arbcom, the offending admins are desysopped. I think that
for legally sensitive pages, we'd be concerned about the possibility of
having wheel-warring administrators or hijacked admin accounts. The latter
can happen to anyone. Restricting certain pages to being edited only by
Stewards via superprotect would help to protect against the former.
Generally speaking I agree that standard full protection is sufficient,
and superprotect should only be invoked in rare cases. I would trust
Stewards to implement Superprotect at the request of the community, or upon
hearing good cause for doing so from WMF.

Pine


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:

 I trust administrators not to edit pages they shouldn't.


 Il 11/08/2015 22:56, Risker ha scritto:

 There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
 community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
 pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
 Individual communities cannot change that (it applies globally), and
 individual administrators should not modify it. If there is a problem with
 translation, that needs to be brought to the attention of the WMF, because
 there may be a similar problem with translation elsewhere.

 There are also some examples currently being discussed on the Wikitech-L
 list that may require significantly elevated levels of protection above
 'all administrators on Project ABC', although they may call for another
 level of protection that can be customizable to allowing a much smaller
 group or specific individuals to be the only editors.

 Risker/Anne


 On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect

 If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this
 usage
 at this talk page to keep an overview in future.

 Greetings,
 Romaine

 2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:

 Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:

 It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
 merged
 and deployed to the dewiki.

 And it's high time it got removed.

 Laurentius



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org

 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Risker]

I hate to say it, but a hijacked Steward account is considerably more
dangerous than a hijacked admin account. It's extremely unlikely to happen
- our stewards are probably more aware of maintaining account security than
just about any other group of users. However, stewards under their current
process could very well find themselves in a situation where a community
wants to do something, like change the (global) terms of use or the
(global) interpretation of copyright policyat which point their current
rules put them smack in the middle of the global community and WMF board
that approved a global policy, and a local community that wants to have its
own.  It's not a fair situation for them to be in.

As well, there will always be a need for an ability to lock a problem page
to address technical problems (in fact, I'm pretty sure there was some code
to do that from the back door, and Superprotect is probably the prettied-up
interface so others can do it), and if there's a problem that serious it is
going to ahve to remain in a broader range of hands.

Risker/Anne

On 11 August 2015 at 17:27, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Most of the time, admins behave as we would hope. Occasionally they don't,
 and on English Wikipedia when that happens often enough or seriously enough
 in the opinion of Arbcom, the offending admins are desysopped. I think that
 for legally sensitive pages, we'd be concerned about the possibility of
 having wheel-warring administrators or hijacked admin accounts. The latter
 can happen to anyone. Restricting certain pages to being edited only by
 Stewards via superprotect would help to protect against the former.
 Generally speaking I agree that standard full protection is sufficient,
 and superprotect should only be invoked in rare cases. I would trust
 Stewards to implement Superprotect at the request of the community, or upon
 hearing good cause for doing so from WMF.

 Pine


 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ricordisamoa 
 ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
 wrote:

  I trust administrators not to edit pages they shouldn't.
 
 
  Il 11/08/2015 22:56, Risker ha scritto:
 
  There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
  community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
  pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
  Individual communities cannot change that (it applies globally), and
  individual administrators should not modify it. If there is a problem
 with
  translation, that needs to be brought to the attention of the WMF,
 because
  there may be a similar problem with translation elsewhere.
 
  There are also some examples currently being discussed on the Wikitech-L
  list that may require significantly elevated levels of protection above
  'all administrators on Project ABC', although they may call for another
  level of protection that can be customizable to allowing a much smaller
  group or specific individuals to be the only editors.
 
  Risker/Anne
 
 
  On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect
 
  If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this
  usage
  at this talk page to keep an overview in future.
 
  Greetings,
  Romaine
 
  2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
 :
 
  Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
 
  wrote:
 
  Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:
 
  It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
  merged
  and deployed to the dewiki.
 
  And it's high time it got removed.
 
  Laurentius
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  
 
 
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
  
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

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.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hate to say it, but a hijacked Steward account is considerably more
 dangerous than a hijacked admin account. It's extremely unlikely to happen
 - our stewards are probably more aware of maintaining account security than
 just about any other group of users. However, stewards under their current
 process could very well find themselves in a situation where a community
 wants to do something, like change the (global) terms of use or the
 (global) interpretation of copyright policyat which point their current
 rules put them smack in the middle of the global community and WMF board
 that approved a global policy, and a local community that wants to have its
 own.  It's not a fair situation for them to be in.

 As well, there will always be a need for an ability to lock a problem page
 to address technical problems (in fact, I'm pretty sure there was some code
 to do that from the back door, and Superprotect is probably the prettied-up
 interface so others can do it), and if there's a problem that serious it is
 going to ahve to remain in a broader range of hands.

 Risker/Anne

 On 11 August 2015 at 17:27, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

  Most of the time, admins behave as we would hope. Occasionally they
 don't,
  and on English Wikipedia when that happens often enough or seriously
 enough
  in the opinion of Arbcom, the offending admins are desysopped. I think
 that
  for legally sensitive pages, we'd be concerned about the possibility of
  having wheel-warring administrators or hijacked admin accounts. The
 latter
  can happen to anyone. Restricting certain pages to being edited only by
  Stewards via superprotect would help to protect against the former.
  Generally speaking I agree that standard full protection is sufficient,
  and superprotect should only be invoked in rare cases. I would trust
  Stewards to implement Superprotect at the request of the community, or
 upon
  hearing good cause for doing so from WMF.
 
  Pine
 
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ricordisamoa 
  ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
  wrote:
 
   I trust administrators not to edit pages they shouldn't.
  
  
   Il 11/08/2015 22:56, Risker ha scritto:
  
   There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
   community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be
 the
   pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
   Individual communities cannot change that (it applies globally), and
   individual administrators should not modify it. If there is a problem
  with
   translation, that needs to be brought to the attention of the WMF,
  because
   there may be a similar problem with translation elsewhere.
  
   There are also some examples currently being discussed on the
 Wikitech-L
   list that may require significantly elevated levels of protection
 above
   'all administrators on Project ABC', although they may call for
 another
   level of protection that can be customizable to allowing a much
 smaller
   group or specific individuals to be the only editors.
  
   Risker/Anne
  
  
   On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  
   So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect
  
   If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this
   usage
   at this talk page to keep an overview in future.
  
   Greetings,
   Romaine
  
   2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske 
 magnusman...@googlemail.com
  :
  
   Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Nathan]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Ricordisamoa]

Yeah, I was just thinking it's time to revert it for good.

Il 11/08/2015 18:11, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:

It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been merged
and deployed to the dewiki.

Just a friendly reminder that you don't forget WMF's inappropriate action.

[1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153302
--
Revi
https://revi.me
-- Sent from Android --
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Magnus Manske]

Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:
  It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
  merged
  and deployed to the dewiki.

 And it's high time it got removed.

 Laurentius



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Laurentius]

Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:
 It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
 merged
 and deployed to the dewiki.

And it's high time it got removed.

Laurentius



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com wrote:


 Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item on
 Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several pages
 following legal disputes.

 Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool which can
 prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
 disruption.


In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a potential to
be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it can be
used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and justified
concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the next
anniversary or earlier :)

best,

dariusz pundit
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[John Lewis]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
wrote:

 Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?


Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item on
Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several pages
following legal disputes.

Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool which can
prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide disruption.

John


-- 
John Lewis
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

My preference would be to have stewards applying Superprotect rather than
WMF. There are cases where Superprotect makes sense, but given WMF's
history with it, I would prefer that it become a community tool.

Pine


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism, if future
 usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?

 Not advocating either way here...

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
 wrote:

  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  
   Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item
 on
   Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several pages
   following legal disputes.
  
   Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool which
  can
   prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
   disruption.
  
  
  In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a potential
 to
  be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it can
 be
  used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
 justified
  concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the next
  anniversary or earlier :)
 
  best,
 
  dariusz pundit
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Pine W]

Can you clarify what you mean? If there are legal reasons for
superprotecting a page, I think that the stewards could handle that.

Pine


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hoi,
 grin did you consider the legal ramnifications ?
 Thanks, /grin
  GerardM

 On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

  My preference would be to have stewards applying Superprotect rather than
  WMF. There are cases where Superprotect makes sense, but given WMF's
  history with it, I would prefer that it become a community tool.
 
  Pine
 
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske 
  magnusman...@googlemail.com
   wrote:
 
   So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism, if
  future
   usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?
  
   Not advocating either way here...
  
   On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
   wrote:
  
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com
wrote:
   

 Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany
 item
   on
 Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several
 pages
 following legal disputes.

 Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool
  which
can
 prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
 disruption.


In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a
  potential
   to
be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it
  can
   be
used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
   justified
concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the
 next
anniversary or earlier :)
   
best,
   
dariusz pundit
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
   
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Magnus Manske]

So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism, if future
usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?

Not advocating either way here...

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 
  Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item on
  Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several pages
  following legal disputes.
 
  Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool which
 can
  prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
  disruption.
 
 
 In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a potential to
 be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it can be
 used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and justified
 concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the next
 anniversary or earlier :)

 best,

 dariusz pundit
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
grin did you consider the legal ramnifications ?
Thanks, /grin
 GerardM

On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 My preference would be to have stewards applying Superprotect rather than
 WMF. There are cases where Superprotect makes sense, but given WMF's
 history with it, I would prefer that it become a community tool.

 Pine


 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske 
 magnusman...@googlemail.com
  wrote:

  So maybe it could stay, as a technical office action mechanism, if
 future
  usage is clearly defined and accepted by the community (TM)?
 
  Not advocating either way here...
 
  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
  wrote:
 
   On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
   
Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item
  on
Wikidata due to a very serious breaking issue. Also on several pages
following legal disputes.
   
Superprotect in my opinion if used correctly is an essential tool
 which
   can
prevent legal and technical issues that can in theory cause wide
disruption.
   
   
   In my private opinion the technical part of Superprotect has a
 potential
  to
   be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it
 can
  be
   used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
  justified
   concerns). I have a hope that we will have it resolved before the next
   anniversary or earlier :)
  
   best,
  
   dariusz pundit
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
  
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Romaine Wiki]

So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect

If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this usage
at this talk page to keep an overview in future.

Greetings,
Romaine

2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:

 Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:
   It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
   merged
   and deployed to the dewiki.
 
  And it's high time it got removed.
 
  Laurentius
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Robert Rohde]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
snip

 There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
 community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
 pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.

snip

Since being full protected 6 years ago, Enwiki's current license page has
been edited by administrators nearly 50 times.  Most of those edits consist
of modifying categories, interwikis, navigational templates, similar
things.  Those edits probably aren't essential, but I would still say they
are useful.

Though hypothetically possible I can't think of any examples of an admin on
enwiki modifying a legal page in a harmful way, which makes it seem like
you have solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.

-Robert Rohde



 On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:

  So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect
 
  If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this
 usage
  at this talk page to keep an overview in future.
 
  Greetings,
  Romaine
 
  2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
 
   Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
  
   On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.w...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha scritto:
 It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has been
 merged
 and deployed to the dewiki.
   
And it's high time it got removed.
   
Laurentius
   
   
   
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
   
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Risker]

Who said the problem was on enwiki?

On 11 August 2015 at 17:58, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 snip

  There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
  community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
  pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.

 snip

 Since being full protected 6 years ago, Enwiki's current license page has
 been edited by administrators nearly 50 times.  Most of those edits consist
 of modifying categories, interwikis, navigational templates, similar
 things.  Those edits probably aren't essential, but I would still say they
 are useful.

 Though hypothetically possible I can't think of any examples of an admin on
 enwiki modifying a legal page in a harmful way, which makes it seem like
 you have solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.

 -Robert Rohde


 
  On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect
  
   If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this
  usage
   at this talk page to keep an overview in future.
  
   Greetings,
   Romaine
  
   2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
 :
  
Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
   
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius 
 laurentius.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
   
 Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha
 scritto:
  It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has
 been
  merged
  and deployed to the dewiki.

 And it's high time it got removed.

 Laurentius



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 
   
  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org

 Unsubscribe:
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
   
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
  
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Robert Rohde]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Who said the problem was on enwiki?


If you think this issue is only a problem in some specific place or class
of wikis, then say so.  Otherwise, I would have to assume you consider it a
problem that exists everywhere, including the large wikis like enwiki.

-Robert Rohde



 On 11 August 2015 at 17:58, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  snip
 
   There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
   community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
   pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia products.
 
  snip
 
  Since being full protected 6 years ago, Enwiki's current license page has
  been edited by administrators nearly 50 times.  Most of those edits
 consist
  of modifying categories, interwikis, navigational templates, similar
  things.  Those edits probably aren't essential, but I would still say
 they
  are useful.
 
  Though hypothetically possible I can't think of any examples of an admin
 on
  enwiki modifying a legal page in a harmful way, which makes it seem like
  you have solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.
 
  -Robert Rohde
 
 
  
   On 11 August 2015 at 16:43, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
So far I know it has only be used once after the occasion, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superprotect
   
If anyone knows another occasion, I would like to ask to report this
   usage
at this talk page to keep an overview in future.
   
Greetings,
Romaine
   
2015-08-11 20:28 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske 
 magnusman...@googlemail.com
  :
   
 Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius 
  laurentius.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Il giorno mer, 12/08/2015 alle 01.11 +0900, Hong, Yongmin ha
  scritto:
   It has been a year (and a day) since the gerrit 153302 [1] has
  been
   merged
   and deployed to the dewiki.
 
  And it's high time it got removed.
 
  Laurentius
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  

   
  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe:
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
  ?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe:
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

  
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
   
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
   
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Risker]

On 11 August 2015 at 18:05, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  Who said the problem was on enwiki?


 If you think this issue is only a problem in some specific place or class
 of wikis, then say so.  Otherwise, I would have to assume you consider it a
 problem that exists everywhere, including the large wikis like enwiki.



The problem is most likely to occur on small wikis with comparatively few
active administrators. That doesn't mean it won't happen on a large wiki,
or that it hasn't.  Just because something doesn't happen on English
Wikipedia (whether good or bad) doesn't mean that it's unimportant or
irrelevant, or that it couldn't eventually happen on enwiki.  There's a
certain irony, after all the years of (sometimes quite justified) concerns
that this list is too enwiki-centric, that when someone makes a point that
doesn't necessarily apply to enwikiwell, I have to admit I found it
humorous.


Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Bohdan Melnychuk]

I agree with the first statement that the level should be removed. It 
has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. As to whether to renew it 
under some policy, I would trust such tool only in hands of stewards, 
not WMF. WMF which consists of considerable part of staffers who ain't 
even wikimedia project editors is very likely to do something like 
enforcing its new unwanted by community development by such means again.


As to the problem of possible hijacking of sysop or even steward accs - 
well WMF guys' accs might be hijacked just as well so that's hardly an 
argument.


I completely disagree with idea about precautionary protection of legal 
related policies. The mechanism proposed about fixing translations via 
request to WMF is probably the worst idea I have heard in a while. It 
both creates great complication to work (I'd rather not fix something 
than waste several days on that) and useless: e.g. I know only one 
person in WMF who knows my native Ukrainian so that she can review 
whether the fix is really needed (Maryana from Mobile fronted team). 
Well perhaps there were some changes in staff and now there are several 
more. But Ukrainian is quite a big language. We have wikis in 280+ 
languages. There definitely are languages which no one of the staff 
knows. The best thing WMF could you in this case by the mechanism 
proposed is to waste donors' money on hiring some translator to that 
rare language so that he takes a look. The translator would be 
non-wikimedian and have no idea what the text is about. We had a good 
bad example of what professional translations are like during this 
year's board elections. Besides fixing (or creating) translations there 
is a vast variety of other things editors might edit on these pages. 
Mark-up, design, categories, some explanations on how to apply the rule 
e.g. which templates are to be used for indicating violations and so on. 
On enwiki indeed such pages are usually quite developed to the point 
where all procedures about the rules are there for years. It is not so 
in smaller wikis so limiting editing of the pages there would be 
limiting development of the wikis.


There were examples of dealing with legal issues without superprotected. 
Like Wikivoyage without much pain changed its logo. If there were a 
superprotect back then and it would had been applied I see it resulting 
in nothing but lots of hatred.


Indeed sysops might start a wheelwar. There has been a mechanism of 
stopping it for ages. A simple desysop.


If there is an issue where a whole community opposed WMF then perhaps 
the problem is not in the community. Even if it actually is I believe 
stews could find a way to settle it even without such harsh means.



--Base
On 12.08.2015 2:06, Nathan wrote:

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe