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.