On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, at 07:02, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:53 PM, svetlana <svetl...@fastmail.com.au> wrote: > > > An undo with appropriate edit summary would also avoid a need in > > escalating the issue - local sysops would consciously hold off their edit. > > If they went against an office action, introducing superprotect /then/ > > could make sense > > > Note that's exactly what was tried in the dewiki situation. The first WMF > revert[1] refers to a warning on the talk page[2] that (according to Google > Translate, and Erik's later statements) seems to basically say "Please > don't do this again. Otherwise we might have to remove the editability of > this page." > > But the local sysop didn't hold off; according to Google Translate he > replied "With threats you will achieve nothing." > > > [1]: > https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.js&diff=132938232&oldid=132931760 > [2]: > https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Diskussion:Common.js&diff=132938244&oldid=132935469 > > > > -- > Brad Jorsch (Anomie) > Software Engineer > Wikimedia Foundation
By the way, while there is a downside to what the folks did (as in, edit war and insist on stuff), I suppose it's partly justified by the thing being a first point in time where a local consencus was considered insufficient. I took some notes of this, and possible solutions, on this draft essay: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regaining_trust_in_local_consencus I expect that superprotect is just a consequence of such missing trust; once the trust is regained, there is no need in superprotect in principle. svetlana _______________________________________________ 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>
