https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #28 from Alex Monk ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Hold on, Alex. What commit are you talking about? I don't see any links to
> commits on this bug report. Even if I did, please keep in mind that we have
> different skillsets, and I
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #27 from Risker ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> (In reply to comment #25)
> If they are moved to revision deletion alone,
> without suppression, then yes
> there will be hundreds of people who
> suddenly have access. As well, in
>
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Alex Monk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #25 from Risker ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> I totally agree with MZMcBride. Oversighted edits will (as far as I know)
> moved
to RevDel/suppression, thus it's not like they will suddenly be
> accessible to
everyone or to all adm
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #24 from Trijnstel ---
I totally agree with MZMcBride. Oversighted edits will (as far as I know) moved
to RevDel/suppression, thus it's not like they will suddenly be accessible to
everyone or to all admins. Besides: all current ove
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #23 from John Mark Vandenberg ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > If you want more info, I suggest asking a WMF staff member who is on
> > functionaries-en.
>
> Even if every subscriber to functionaries-en
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #22 from MZMcBride ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Oversight was also specifically advertised as *complete removal including
> publicly viewable logs* while suppression has always been advertised as
> leaving the date/time of revisi
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #21 from Risker ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Reopening.
> > The decision to disregard the risks needs to come from WMF management.
>
> WMF doesn't own MediaWiki, nor do they get the final say on whe
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
MZMcBride changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mden...@wikimedia.org,
|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
John Mark Vandenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WON
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #18 from Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Reopening.
> The decision to disregard the risks needs to come from WMF management.
WMF doesn't own MediaWiki, nor do they get the final say on whether something
is imp
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Alex Monk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|18598 |
--- Comment #17 from Alex Monk ---
(In r
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Nathan Larson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathanlarson3...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Alex Monk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Larson ---
A request to implement the feature can be one bug report (viz. this one); a
request to actually enable the implemented feature on a particular wiki can be
another bug report. There is no need to WONTFIX im
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #13 from John Mark Vandenberg ---
FWIW, it would be sufficient to only use this 'hide placeholder' for old
migrated revisions, and prevent it being used on new RevDel actions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the as
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
John Mark Vandenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WON
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Krenair changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Nemo_bis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||41492
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzil
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Dmcdevit changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||18840
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzil
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
John Mark Vandenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||18598
--
Configure bugmail: ht
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Aaron Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jschulz_4...@msn.com|wikibugs-
|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #10 from FT2 2009-09-13 02:04:56 UTC ---
It's been discussed numerous times.
A good indication of importance is that the Oversight log was originally
public, and afterwards was amended and became non-public. That was a change
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #9 from John Mark Vandenberg 2009-09-13
00:40:18 UTC ---
This is needed for times when the revision is not wanted in the history,
irrespective of whether all elements of the edit are suppressed.
Usually it is sufficient to pu
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #8 from Aaron Schulz 2009-09-13 00:02:17
UTC ---
Yes, but when is the lack of a placeholder needed? What situation?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #7 from Thatcher 2009-09-12 22:04:20 UTC
---
Adding this feature would remove the final objections to disabling the
oversight extension. Oversight is currently deprecated in favor of suppression
because suppression is reversi
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #6 from Aaron Schulz 2009-09-12 21:50:07
UTC ---
When is this needed?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
Deskana changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||djgw...@googlemail.com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #4 from FT2 2009-08-18 09:44:04 UTC ---
Try this:
Who should be able to see the placeholder:
[ All users | Admins and oversighters only | Oversighters only]
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #3 from Thatcher 2009-08-17 17:04:17 UTC
---
Yes, hiding the placeholder should only be a live option if the edit is being
fully suppressed otherwise. Allowing admins to see the placeholder is also a
good idea. This could be
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
FT2 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||18493
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzill
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
--- Comment #2 from FT2 2009-08-17 16:52:46 UTC ---
One thought - placeholder hiding should only be an option if "suppress all
aspects" is selected - username, edit summary, revision text and "admin lock".
If some fields aren't suppresse
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20290
FT2 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ft2.w...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from FT2
33 matches
Mail list logo
