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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to