Last modified: 2014-08-29 08:12:57 UTC
Given the super protection of a MediaWiki:Common.js, that makes it unmaintainable for local administrators, I’d like to get a statement by the Wikimedia Foundation's development department that it is going to maintain all script pages it super-protects or to show a proper way to propose and approve changes of those in a timely fashion. If this isn’t going to happen, I’ll file another bug to remove either super protection or site wide community scripting support as unmaintained scripts are unacceptable for providing a stable service to our visitors and contributors.
This is inappropriate. The Foundation are not preventing every single administrator from editing site-wide js pages. Erik has stated they are proposing a code-review sytle system and I have seen a patch which separates site js and CSS from the editinterface package. Sitewide js pages will not be removed from MediaWiki nor will superprotect from Wikimedia as visible by the 30 patches reverting the change abandoned by operations. I'll leave this bug open but I am urging an INVALID close.
I think Rillke only intended to add such a note on the pages that have actually been superprotected, not all that might technically be some day.
In theory this is something a local community can do so bringing it to Bugzilla is you know :)
(In reply to Bartosz Dziewoński from comment #2) Thank you, yes, there should be some notification on each of such pages how to propose changes to them and get these reviewed in a *timely manner*. (In reply to John F. Lewis from comment #1) > This is inappropriate. Please be specific about what is inappropriate. The bug's description contains multiple options. > The Foundation are not preventing every single administrator from editing > site-wide js pages. This was not true. And I see that in future, super protection might be used again which renders all non-staffers unable to edit pages with this protection level. > Erik has stated they are proposing a code-review sytle system Code review sounds good, though non-default gadgets should be still deployable without having someone reviewing them. There won't be enough resources. > a patch which separates site js and CSS from the editinterface package Cool. Gerrit #? > nor will superprotect from Wikimedia as visible by the 30 patches reverting > the change abandoned by operations Fine, then let's go with what Bartosz Dziewoński suggests. DMCA takedown notices from the legal team consist of comprehensive information about how to challenge them and often also why the DMCA requests were complied with. I think we should have something similar for super protection: * What will be the right channel to get emergency-changes quickly applied to super protected pages. * Why were pages super protected? * What is super protection?
(In reply to John F. Lewis from comment #3) Well, every local community would have to develop its own wording, so why not doing it centralized?
Tightening summary since this only applies to superprotected pages. The rest of CSS/JS is still very much in an individual wiki's control.
(In reply to Rainer Rillke @commons.wikimedia from comment #4) > > This is inappropriate. > Please be specific about what is inappropriate. The bug's description > contains multiple options. The fact it originally looked out to be yet another 'oh let's remove this protection because x or y'. I retract that now. > > The Foundation are not preventing every single administrator from editing > > site-wide js pages. > This was not true. And I see that in future, super protection might be used > again which renders all non-staffers unable to edit pages with this > protection level. It is true technically. They used it once, this does not mean *everything* will be super protected because x or y. > > a patch which separates site js and CSS from the editinterface package > Cool. Gerrit #? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/154452/
> Erik has stated they are proposing a code-review sytle system bug 69445
(In reply to Jesús Martínez Novo (Ciencia Al Poder) from comment #8) > > Erik has stated they are proposing a code-review sytle system > > bug 69445 for non large wikis. To be honest, on large wikis are engough admins to revert errors if needed. At lest "prevent saving if too much validations (jshint etc.) errors.
