Well, therein lies the problem. If a "community" goes rogue, and wants to selectively change the copyright terms for their project, stewards (under the current standards of behaviour) would pretty much be obligated to do that - even though it's contrary to a lot of other things. We can't put volunteers into a position where they have to choose between overall WMF policy and direct requests from projects that are within their scope to carry out. Frankly, nobody (stewards or otherwise) should be able to change certain pages without very intense discussion and, in some cases, Board approval. With employees, they'd lose access immediately and be reverted before being shown the door for cause - there is a very strong disincentive to carry out these acts without authorization. For volunteers, the worst that happens is they'll have permissions removed, and even that would be a fight as we have seen with past examples; it's vanishingly unlikely they'd even get blocked, let alone banned.
Risker/Anne
On 11 August 2015 at 14:17, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, the same thought crossed my mind. Unfortunately, superprotect has such a well-earned negative reputation in the community that I don't think it will ever be welcomed even in situations like this where it might be sensible. An alternative might be to devolve the superprotect right to stewards, who could apply it to certain highly sensitive pages at the request of the community.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l