Erik Moeller wrote: >Admins are currently given broad leeway to customize the user >experience for all users, including addition of site-wide JS, CSS, >etc. These are important capabilities of the wiki that have been used >for many clearly beneficial purposes. In the long run, we will want to >apply a code review process to these changes as with any other >deployed code, but for now the system works as it is and we have no >intent to remove this capability. > >However, we've clarified in a number of venues that use of the >MediaWiki: namespace to disable site features is unacceptable. If such >a conflict arises, we're prepared to revoke permissions if required. >This protection level provides an additional path to manage these >situations by preventing edits to the relevant pages (we're happy to >help apply any urgent edits) until a particular situation has calmed >down.
Let's be clear here. You unilaterally implemented super-protection and then had a "Community Advocate" apply this new protection level to the German Wikipedia's "MediaWiki:Common.js"? 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? The German Wikipedia can easily use "MediaWiki:Vector.js" or an on-by-default JavaScript gadget to implement this change. The German Wikipedia can also block Jan Eissfeldt's account for conduct unbecoming of an administrator. In my opinion, it also wouldn't be unreasonable for the stewards to remove Jan Eissfeldt's capability to protect this page. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
