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.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com
> So maybe it could stay, as a "technical office action" mechanism, if
> 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 <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis <johnflewis93(a)gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Yes. It was used a few months ago to prevent editing the Germany item
> > > 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
> > be useful, it is the social background (who approves its use, how it can
> > used, etc.) that matters and that is the bone of contention (and
> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l