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
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
No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or
something like it. Removing the tool from the software would be more a
symbolic measure than anything.
In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it
(or only use it under conditions agreed upon in
The general trend in the past few months has been for WMF to be more
respectful and supportive of the community, and I hope that this trend
continues (for example, by empowering the grantmaking committees with more
discretion and leadership responsibilities, and by placing more emphasis on
Pine W wrote:
*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.
I have pulled together the following table together for the past 360 days,
counting whenever an image was reverted by someone who was not the last
uploader, and then attempting to find any declared gender:
2014-2015 Commons file overwrite stats compared to gender
+---+--+
|
Hi,
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I needed to re-read my comments before
I realized that they could be read the way that you seemed to have done,
and I apologize if I was unclear. If an admin account becomes compromised,
the current procedures for locking that account would apply.
A use of
