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 --
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Out of curiosity, was it ever used again after that initial action?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM Laurentius laurentius.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com 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
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com 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"
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 darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com 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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 <magnusmanske@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 darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com 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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, <grin> did you consider the legal ramnifications ? Thanks, </grin> GerardM
On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com 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 < magnusmanske@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 darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com 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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, <grin> did you consider the legal ramnifications ? Thanks, </grin> GerardM
On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com 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 < magnusmanske@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 darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com 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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, In case of a legal situation. Taking a position like "superprotecting" means that you take on a liability. When you do this as part of a job, it is different from doing it as a volunteer. Insisting on having this done by stewards means insisting on their vulnerability.. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 August 2015 at 22:17, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
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 < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, <grin> did you consider the legal ramnifications ? Thanks, </grin> GerardM
On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com 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 < magnusmanske@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 <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis <
johnflewis93@gmail.com>
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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 12 August 2015 at 19:46, Gerard Meijssen <> wrote:
Hoi, In case of a legal situation. Taking a position like "superprotecting" means that you take on a liability. When you do this as part of a job, it is different from doing it as a volunteer.
-- ​ The only difference I can understand is tha​t the stewards/admins and their knowledge, skills and decision-taking power have been tested or verified​ by the community. We can not say the same thing for *all* WMF employees.
On 11 August 2015 at 22:17, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
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 < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, <grin> did you consider the legal ramnifications ? Thanks, </grin> GerardM
On 11 August 2015 at 22:14, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com 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 < magnusmanske@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 <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis <
johnflewis93@gmail.com>
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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That sounds reasonable.
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:14:58 -0700 From: wiki.pine@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
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 <magnusmanske@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 darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com 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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Using it for legal disputes is poor form. We had legal disputes before, and managed them with "office actions". If you don't trust the admins not to purposefully post libel or copyvios, then super-protecting a page or two won't help.
Moreover it implies that the Foundation can or will take action in these matters to override the community, which opens them up to charges of discrimination, favouritism, nepotism, cowardice, corruption or at least stupidity.
On 11/08/2015 19:36, 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. John
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 magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com 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 magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com 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 magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 ricordisamoa@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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com 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 magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 policy....at 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 wiki.pine@gmail.com 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 < ricordisamoa@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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com
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 <magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 risker.wp@gmail.com 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 policy....at 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 wiki.pine@gmail.com 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 < ricordisamoa@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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com
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 <
magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com 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.
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 wiki.pine@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...
I'm not sure I agree with that. There are two known uses. The first one, where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community was a "bad usage" I'll agree; if anything the hamfisted way that the whole situation was handled just made matters much worse. The second use, locking a page on Wikidata where serious outages were being caused to another project, strikes me as a far more reasonable use of the tool. The fact that that usage seems to have been largely unknown until today, and didn't garner any controversy, seems to indicate to me that the community doesn't find it to be a troubling case.
I'm all for having a discussion over the community's expectations on when this tool will be used, but let us not walk down a path of hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers, Craig
We all know for what the tool was initially created. I am not sure if it is ethically okay to keep status quo. Maybe it is time to move on and remove the tool or to start a RFC to see if the community want the tool? :-)
Not advocating - just some thoughts and either way here... :)
Regards, Steinsplitter
No comment about Gerard Meijssen's <grin> comment. It is explaining itself perfectly.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:37 +1000 From: cfranklin@halonetwork.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...
I'm not sure I agree with that. There are two known uses. The first one, where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community was a "bad usage" I'll agree; if anything the hamfisted way that the whole situation was handled just made matters much worse. The second use, locking a page on Wikidata where serious outages were being caused to another project, strikes me as a far more reasonable use of the tool. The fact that that usage seems to have been largely unknown until today, and didn't garner any controversy, seems to indicate to me that the community doesn't find it to be a troubling case.
I'm all for having a discussion over the community's expectations on when this tool will be used, but let us not walk down a path of hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers, Craig _______________________________________________ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
How would superprotect be used in a legal situation and how would that be different from any other way that community and WMF have found to deal with that without the tool in the past? Can somebody provide a hyphotethical example please?
Is WMF willing to discuss with community how superprotect should be used? That was done before for other important policies and avoiding to explain this apparent unwillingness to openly discuss that does not leave a good impression, especially concerning the obscure ways on its creation and the fact it was created in order to make part of a wiki community... which is very contrasting. That maybe wouldn't disallow its creation, but just enforces a better procedure and more talking.
Regards.
*Lucas Teles*
*Steward at Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator * *at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*Visit my blog: wikipedista.com http://wikipedista.com Contact me: [image: Facebook] http://www.facebook.com/telesr < Facebook http://www.facebook.com/telesr > [image: Twitter] http://www.twitter.com/Lucas_Teles < Twitter https://twitter.com/Lucas_Teles > Mobile: < 55 71 9374 2725 > I am a Wikimedia volunteer. Wikimedia Foundation can not be held responsible for my actions.
2015-08-12 11:17 GMT-03:00 Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com:
We all know for what the tool was initially created. I am not sure if it is ethically okay to keep status quo. Maybe it is time to move on and remove the tool or to start a RFC to see if the community want the tool? :-)
Not advocating - just some thoughts and either way here... :)
Regards, Steinsplitter
No comment about Gerard Meijssen's <grin> comment. It is explaining itself perfectly.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:37 +1000 From: cfranklin@halonetwork.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...
I'm not sure I agree with that. There are two known uses. The first
one,
where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community
was
a "bad usage" I'll agree; if anything the hamfisted way that the whole situation was handled just made matters much worse. The second use, locking a page on Wikidata where serious outages were being caused to another project, strikes me as a far more reasonable use of the tool.
The
fact that that usage seems to have been largely unknown until today, and didn't garner any controversy, seems to indicate to me that the community doesn't find it to be a troubling case.
I'm all for having a discussion over the community's expectations on when this tool will be used, but let us not walk down a path of hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers, Craig _______________________________________________ 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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 13 August 2015 at 06:51, Lucas Teles <> wrote:
How would superprotect be used in a legal situation and how would that be different from any other way that community and WMF have found to deal with that without the tool in the past? Can somebody provide a hyphotethical example please?
Is WMF willing to discuss with community how superprotect should be used?
​In my personal opinion, answer to ​all your question is "No". Superprotect is a part of OA (Office Action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions)
(No, I am not endorsing the use of SuperProtect), I think WMF has kept it as a tool of OA (OfficeAction) to handle some of the most complicated situation which often lead to problematic legal issues.
No community would want to change documents issued by the WMF, if it did, the stewards would be crazy to do so.
This is reaching.
Why?
On 11/08/2015 22:34, Risker wrote:
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 policy....at 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.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
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.
<snip>
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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com 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 magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Who said the problem was on enwiki?
On 11 August 2015 at 17:58, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com 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 <magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com 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 rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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 romaine.wiki@gmail.com
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 <
magnusmanske@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.wiki@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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11 August 2015 at 18:05, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com 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 enwiki....well, I have to admit I found it humorous.
Risker/Anne
Not a good example. This could be a special page.
On 11/08/2015 21:56, 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. 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
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.
I agree. It's a bedrock principle of MediaWiki and Wikimedia that local administrators are trusted users. "Superprotection" was hastily implemented on a spurious premise and it has no legitimate use-cases. It was never appropriate to deploy to Wikimedia wikis and it should be removed. And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify this misfeature's existence, in my opinion.
MZMcBride
A few legitimate use cases could be:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.
Pine
Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the responsibility. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
A few legitimate use cases could be:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15
No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or something like it. Removing the tool from the software would be more a symbolic measure than anything.
In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it (or only use it under conditions agreed upon in consultation with the editor communities). Building such an agreement could have benefits for WMF-Community relations, whereas misuse of the tool would be detrimental to community relations. Though intangible, those relationships are important, and the WMF appreciates that there is value there that should be considered.
So, no, we can't force the WMF to respect our wishes, but we can hope that they will work with us because a good relationship between the WMF and the editor community is important for both groups.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the responsibility. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
A few legitimate use cases could be:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The general trend in the past few months has been for WMF to be more respectful and supportive of the community, and I hope that this trend continues (for example, by empowering the grantmaking committees with more discretion and leadership responsibilities, and by placing more emphasis on supporting small affiliates that show growth potential).
The WMF Board could legislate that no one on the WMF staff may invoke superprotect directly, and all superprotect-related actions must be reviewed and applied by a steward. (I am assuming that stewards will agree to implement superprotect actions that WMF is required to undertake for legal reasons). I do think that such a policy would improve WMF's relationship with the community.
Pine On Aug 13, 2015 2:19 AM, "Robert Rohde" rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or something like it. Removing the tool from the software would be more a symbolic measure than anything.
In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it (or only use it under conditions agreed upon in consultation with the editor communities). Building such an agreement could have benefits for WMF-Community relations, whereas misuse of the tool would be detrimental to community relations. Though intangible, those relationships are important, and the WMF appreciates that there is value there that should be considered.
So, no, we can't force the WMF to respect our wishes, but we can hope that they will work with us because a good relationship between the WMF and the editor community is important for both groups.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems
a
bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the responsibility. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
A few legitimate use cases could be:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages,
to
prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is
that
admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood
of
a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request
for a
temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where
those
pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I
would
prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in
the
hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date:
08/13/15
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Pine W wrote:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
"And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify this misfeature's existence, in my opinion."
I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios. In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm boggling pretty hard at your reply here.
MZMcBride
Hi,
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I needed to re-read my comments before I realized that they could be read the way that you seemed to have done, and I apologize if I was unclear. If an admin account becomes compromised, the current procedures for locking that account would apply.
A use of superprotect could be to protect certain pages or settings against actions stemming from the hypothetical but possible scenario that an admin account is compromised.
I hope that I've made my position clear now. I think that I've spoken my share in this thread, so my intent is to be quiet for the moment so that others can have airtime. If you have additional questions for me about this thread, please contact me off list.
Thanks, Pine On Aug 13, 2015 6:54 AM, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Pine W wrote:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
"And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify this misfeature's existence, in my opinion."
I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios. In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm boggling pretty hard at your reply here.
MZMcBride
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
(snip)
A use of superprotect could be to protect certain pages or settings
against
actions stemming from the hypothetical but possible scenario that an admin account is compromised.
If the setting is so dangerous that it will cause SERIOUS problem if misconfigured, why is it editable by admins at all? it should be in operations/mediawiki-config.git and should be touched by developers only via gerrit.
(snip)
-- Revi https://revi.me --sent from Android
Thanks for the (single) use case: Trouble is it just pushes the question further down the road.
"inadequate for some compelling reason "
On 13/08/2015 09:25, Pine W wrote:
A*few* legitimate use cases could be:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves.
*Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins.
*Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason.
None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly.
Pine
If WMF decides to completely remove Superprotect and the Board's forthcoming policy prohibits the reintroduction of Superprotect without Board authorization, I won't object to that outcome.
Pine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org