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
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
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
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
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
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
-Apologies for cross-posting-
In June, two surveys were carried out at the request of Wikimedia
Nederland: one among editors of the Dutch language Wikipedia, and one among
the general public (the users of Wikipedia).
The first results of these surveys are now available. Below you will find
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]:
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
