I was thinking the same thing when I first saw that but didn't think it worthy to comment then (me being lazy).-Aaron Schulz> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:30:21 -0500> From: Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [28007] trunk/phase3> > On 12/1/07, werdna(a)svn.wikimedia.org <werdna(a)svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:> > Revision: 28007> > Author: werdna> > Date: 2007-12-01 09:08:43 +0000 (Sat, 01 Dec 2007)> >> > Log Message:> > -----------> > * (bug 11346) Prevent users who cannot edit a page from changing its restrictions.> > This kind of hard-coded merging of restrictions makes me uneasy. What> if someone wants to have a protection level where no one at all can> edit the page, without explicitly unprotecting? Then no one could> ever unprotect it . . . In general, I like to see "edit" mean "edit",> not "edit and also unprotect, if you have the unprotect right". But> maybe that's just me.> > A cleaner way to do this, if protection levels higher than sysop are> desired, is to explicitly have different levels of the 'protect'> permission. This is possibly most suitable for an extension.> > _______________________________________________> Wikitech-l mailing list> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _________________________________________________________________ Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate.  Join in. www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline

Simetrical wrote: That's a rather unlikely scenario. It may be unclean, but it does make MediaWiki slightly easier to configure, by removing a possible pitfall. -- Tim Starling