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
[mailto:email@example.com] 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
*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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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