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:
<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(a)live.com>om>:
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(a)halonetwork.net
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk <base-w(a)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
<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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>