Tim, I don't believe the issue was a failure to be clear. The problem is the content of the change and its heavy handed enforcement.
Super protection either should not exist, or like suppression, it should be used only by stewards and community approved functionaries. On Aug 11, 2014 5:49 PM, "Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/08/14 21:49, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Now, the devs/ops have attempted to introduce that capability, and the new functionality is very likely riddled with holes, some of which MZMcBride has suggested in the thread 'Options for the German Wikipedia'.
Most of what MZMcBride posted there has nothing to do with actually breaking superprotection. Editing a page that isn't superprotected isn't
a
break in the protection feature itself, for example. Nor is hacking people's accounts.
Right, we (devs) weren't asked to prevent admins from disabling MediaViewer, we were only asked to make it possible to protect pages in the MediaWiki namespace such that ordinary admins couldn't edit them. I understood the feature request as introducing a more gradual escalation path, it wasn't an attempt to directly achieve a particular goal.
John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
These patches only introduce a new policy, signalling a new era, and make it technically more challenging to bypass that new policy. The policy written says "Sysops are not allowed to inject JavaScript into the reader's user-agent which interferes with WMF's favoured features."
Erik was very clear about this policy change in his first email to this thread.
-- Tim Starling
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe