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  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, 




___
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

[Nathan]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W  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, 

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

[Risker]

On 11 August 2015 at 18:05, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Risker  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, 

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

[Robert Rohde]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Risker  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  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, 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.
> >
> > 
> >
> > 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 
> 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,
> > > > > >  > ?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,
> > > > >  ?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,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines

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

[Risker]

Who said the problem was on enwiki?

On 11 August 2015 at 17:58, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, 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.
>
> 
>
> 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  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  >:
> > >
> > > > 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,
> > > > >  ?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,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[Robert Rohde]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, 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.



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  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 :
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[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  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  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 
> > 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,
> > >>> Roma

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  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 
> 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  >:
> >>>
> >>> Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
> 
>  On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM 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.
> >
> > 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
> ,
> > 
> >
>  ___
>  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
> ,
>  
> 
>  ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.or

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

 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM 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.
>
> 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,
> 
>
 ___
 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,
 

 ___
>>> 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,
>>> 
>>>
>>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[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  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 :


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

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM 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.

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,


___
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,



___
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,



___
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, 




___
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

[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  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 :
>
> > Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM 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.
> > >
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[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 :

> Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM 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.
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[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 
wrote:

> Hoi,
>  did you consider the legal ramnifications ?
> Thanks, 
>  GerardM
>
> On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W  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 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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

On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W  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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[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  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 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, 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.
> > >
> > >
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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

[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 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, 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.
> >
> >
> 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,
> 
___
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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, 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.
>
>
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, 

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

[John Lewis]

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Magnus Manske 
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, 

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 
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
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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

[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, 

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, 




___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

[Hong, Yongmin]

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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Nederland surveys among editors and readers of Wikipedia

[Sandra Rientjes Wikimedia Nederland]

-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
summaries of the main results, and links to the full reports.

Both surveys provide interesting insights - also in the light of the
ongoing discussion about community health.  The challenge for Wikimedia
Nederland now will be to use these to develop better community support and
outreach programmes.

After the summer break, WMNL is planning a discussion with the community to
decide just that.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these surveys.



*A.   Survey among editors - summary of results  (link to full report
)*

*New editors*: A large majority of editors recognizes the importance of a
continuous influx of new editors and feels that new editors are welcome. To
ensure that new editors will not drop out, care and guidance of newbies
must be improved.

*Diversity*: Only 11% of the respondents are women. Everyone recognizes, to
a greater or lesser extent, the disadvantages of limited diversity among
the editors. There is large support for the theory that low participation
of women negatively affects the coverage of topics in Wikipedia. The
atmosphere on Wikipedia is most often cited as a cause for low
participation of women; women mention it much more often as a cause than
men.

*Work Atmosphere*: Opinions are divided about the work atmosphere on the
Dutch Wikipedia. However, there are more editors dissatisfied with the
atmosphere than satisfied. The atmosphere is most frequently characterized
as quarrelsome and distrustful, and quite often also as constructive and
aggressive. A large group of editors on the Dutch Wikipedia has on occasion
been approached in a manner that they considered inappropriate; a small
group admits to having approached others in an inappropriate manner
themselves.

*Conflicts and Conflict Resolution*: The number of conflicts is seen as
high by the editors. Two in five editors state that in the past six months
they have been involved in a situation that felt like a conflict.There are
different opinions on the resolution of the conflicts. There are more
editors who indicate that conflicts are only sometimes or (almost) never
solved in a good way, than those who say this usually or always happens in
a good way. What is also striking is that a fairly large group has no
opinion on the number of conflicts and/or solution thereof.

Egos and stubbornness are considered to play a major role in the emergence
of conflict. Rules/guidelines and moderation by trained people are often
put forward as a solution.

*Communication*: The dialogue (communication) between editors is fragmented
across many channels and occurs in particular via talk pages. The editors
rarely communicate with each outside of Wikipedia, either in person or
online via social media. Wikimedia mailing lists, blogs, newsletters or
notice pages are not frequently read, and attendance of Wikimedia-organized
events in the Netherlands or abroad is limited.

*Wikimedia Nederland*: A large majority of respondents is familiar with
Wikimedia Nederland and about a quarter of the respondents is currently
also a member. (This is not representative of the overall population of
editors - we estimate 10% of active edtiors are members) Generally, the
respondents are satisfied with the (kind of) work WMNL does.



*B. Survey among readers (users) of Wikipedia - summary of results  (link
to full report)
*


*Knowledge and use of Wikipedia are high, as is satisfaction.*

· Knowledge of Wikipedia and the number of users of Wikipedia have
increased significantly in recent years (2013-2015). Four in five Dutch
people now know about, and use, Wikipedia.

· Levels/frequency of use of Wikipedia have not increased. It is
possible that new users use Wikipedia less intensively.

· More than one tenth of Dutch people said they had installed the
Wikipedia app. That is a very high number.

· In general terms, a large majority thought the articles were very
readable and easy to use. The number of people who thought this was
slightly down on 2013.



*Awareness of matters relating to Wikipedia is falling*

· These are matters such as: the fact that everybody can post and
edit articles, that all text and photos are freely available and that
Wikipedia does not have any profit motive.

· This may also be linked to the arrival of new users who, for the
time being, may be less well-informed.*Slight increase in willingness to
contribute*

· There was a slight increase in the willingness to contribute
between 2013 and 2015. The main r