On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
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":
On the "extremely offensive" part, let me explain why I typed
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
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.
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation