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. 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 themselves. > >*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.
"And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify this misfeature's existence, in my opinion." I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios. In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm boggling pretty hard at your reply here. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
