On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 10 August 2014 15:51, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You'd been threatening to implement super-protection for a long time. I see you finally made good on this very bad idea. This is certainly bold, but also incredibly reckless. Your response to being told "we don't like your software" is to try shove it down a wiki community's throat?
I thought this was a response to someone hamfistedly editing en:wp's JS and *actually breaking it*. When Erik reverted this change and said "don't break the damn wiki", the response was "but we can so we should be able to!" and an attempt to take the Foundation to en:wp arbitration. The obvious response is to make it so that such blithering stupidity can't be enacted again.
Super-protection was implemented in response to the German, not English, Wikipedia. It turns out that multiple communities don't like MediaViewer.
Erik is squarely responsible for the mess being made here and deserves the full blame and consequences. He instigated the arbitration case on the English Wikipedia and he's now instigating a war with the German Wikipedia.
The German Wikipedia community has looked at and evaluated MediaViewer and has decided that it doesn't want MediaViewer enabled on its wiki. Erik has made it his mission to force MediaViewer on the German Wikipedians (and the Commoners), using system administrators and community advocates and anyone else he can coerce. This is unacceptable behavior on Erik's part. MediaViewer is an entirely supplementary feature, not some fundamental or critical piece of infrastructure in desperate need of protection.
As this has wide-ranging implications, I have started an RFC on meta
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights
-- John Vandenberg