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