Hi Andy,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Referring to "misbehaviour" in this context is extremely offensive; the initial use of superprotect was not a response to "misbehaviour".
Changed for the more precise and descriptive term "irregular edits": https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_product_development_process%... .
On the "extremely offensive" part, let me explain why I typed "misbehavior" without aiming to offend anyone. That paragraph refers to a future context defined by the new development process. That sentence refers to a potential situation where the process has been followed and someone blocks it using their admin permissions. What the sentence wants to say is that, even if someone thinks such action is misbehavior, the solution is to let the admins handle the situation, not to use a tool controlled exclusively by the WMF. I'm sure we agree with this principle.
I wasn't trying to judge past events. It is the job of the administrators to judge whether an edit in a page editable only by admins is appropriate or not.
PS: if you find room for improvement in the Q&A, you can comment in the Talk page, or edit directly. Wiki business as usual.