On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Todd Allen
like suppression, it should be
used only by stewards and community approved functionaries.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that suppression is not used by staff?
Super protection can be used by staff, and was. Suppression can be used by
staff as well, and regularly is. (For instance, if legal were to ask me to
suppress an edit, under court order). It (suppression) is not a tool we use
without careful consideration, but it is one we use. I should think the
same would be true of superprotection- it's not to be used lightly but it
is a tool in our belt.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
I think we're comparing apples to anvils here. Handling a legal issue using
suppression (or protection, or now superprotection) is a far cry from using
it to resolve a dispute to one's preferred outcome. That is, if nothing
else, a massive expansion of what's normally been acceptable as an Office
action, which have historically (and to my mind, properly) been reserved
for cases that could put us in severe legal jeopardy if not immediately
addressed. Those cases, while rare, are an appropriate use.
Standard full protection along with necessary suppressions, however, along
with clear warnings indicating what's going on, has always been sufficient
to handle those few cases. Superprotection wasn't designed with vanishingly
rare Office legal actions that are already quite adequately handled in
mind, and I think all of us here know that. It's another attempt to force
unwanted changes, because apparently "We'll desysop you for implementing
your community's decisions when we won't!" wasn't quite ham-fisted