Laurentius 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.
I agree. It's a bedrock principle of MediaWiki and Wikimedia t
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?
>
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
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.wikime
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 sh
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,
St
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 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk 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 any
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 S
