Talk:Superprotect

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2nd usage of spro.: d:Q183[edit]

above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See history of that page. Superprotect was used there for technical reasons: editing would have caused the software to crash. After the bug was fixed, superprotect has been removed from the page. Romaine (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Romaine: Two questions:
Would any other form of protection have served the same purpose? (NB: "…There was no edits since July 2014 (because it was not possible to edit Q183 at all).…" vlsergey on Phabricator.)
Is there any public log of every super protect use?
From appearances, the use of super protected may have been both useless and knee-jerk in this case. Which, as I understand it, is exactly the reason some oppose it. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 14:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not enough knowledge about this. I just wanted to have a good overview of its usage, and the reasons for it. For more details I think it would be better to ask the developers or the user who had used it. Romaine (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response!
From your response I believe it is safe to say we do not know if there were technical reasons for using Superprotect. Further, we can say we do not know if there have been further uses. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Génial! Brilliant![edit]

Great news from AKlepper! Hoping we can mend some bridges and fill some chasms. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How to cover removal[edit]

The removal of Superprotect, in spite of being acknowledged as significant, has been done (thus far) in a piecemeal way. There has been no blog post, no press release; instead, several messages from several different people, using varied language:

These messages all emphasize different points. What's the best way to cover them here? Should we link to all of them? If so, should this page have a whole separate section on the removal?

I think the main issue is that somebody without any background, but knowing this was a significant event in Wikimedia history, should be well served by a page like this. What's the right balance between glossing over important details, and drowning out the broad themes with too many details and links? -Pete F (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point I would suggest a separate section, and a complete list of links to relevant resources. The actual text of the section, in my opinion, should be relatively brief and stick to the simplest over-view.
The reason for such simplicity (yet over-abundance of source linkages) is that at this time we cannot reasonably grasp the historic significance of the event. It must be left to future writers to gauge what the results of the Superprotect period might be. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New PhD dissertation[edit]

Superprotect, including this page and some wikimedians, are cited in https://repub.eur.nl/pub/113937 --Nemo 15:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)