Last modified: 2014-11-17 09:21:11 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 8658 - Allow cascading protections for non-full protection
Allow cascading protections for non-full protection
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 5 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks: 8575
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-16 18:04 UTC by Rotem Liss
Modified: 2014-11-17 09:21 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Rotem Liss 2007-01-16 18:04:54 UTC
To make the cascading protections more usable, it makes sense to protect for
sysops only if one of the "parent" pages is protected for sysops (or even
better, if the protection level for cascading protections is set in the
protection form). Otherwise, autoconfirmed protection should be used (we could
make the algorithm smarter than that and use other groups, but I don't see the
point to do that).
Comment 1 Andrew Garrett 2007-01-17 01:55:54 UTC
As it stands, the software has no concept of "semi-protection" and "full
protection". Implementing this would involve teaching the sofware about which
protection is "higher" than the other.
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2007-01-17 02:42:02 UTC
I don't think defining a hierarchy of levels is necessary; requiring that the
user be able to pass _all_ the various cascaded protections probably would do
the expected thing.

The main difficulty is perhaps that our current model is to give a list of
possible permission keys and require that the user satisfy _at least one_ of them.

I'm not really sure how best to integrate these two models but I'm sure some
smart fella can figure it out. :)
Comment 3 Aaron Schulz 2007-01-29 01:04:18 UTC
The beauty of full protection is that the edit right coincides with the protect
right. Even if semipro did cascade as semi-pro elsewhere, the autoconfirmed
right does not align with the protect right :S.
Comment 4 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-01-29 01:18:57 UTC
We shouldn't allow cascading autoconfirmed, see bug 8796.  It should be possible for different 
protection levels to cascade, perhaps, but only if it's specifically enabled for them.
Comment 5 Rob Church 2007-01-29 01:26:41 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> The beauty of full protection is that the edit right coincides with the protect
> right.

Only by default. Most things should never work on the basis that two rights will
be held equally.
Comment 6 Aaron Schulz 2007-04-24 02:37:14 UTC
My issue is with users being able to "protect" other pages with this, which I
really don't like.
Comment 7 Andrew Garrett 2007-09-10 06:28:17 UTC
I was about to make the same point as VoA. I'm going to WONTFIX this - cascading protection on semi-protected pages should never be allowed, because it allows a semi-cascade-protected page to be used to protect arbitrary pages on the wiki. I've made that change server-side (previously javascript was used to stop it) in r25715.
Comment 8 Chenzw 2008-05-23 13:56:01 UTC
Is it possible to actually cause the page included in the cascading-protected page to be editable by autoconfirmed users as well instead of sysops only? Sorry if this was brought up already, but I can't resist talking about it.
Comment 9 Andrew Garrett 2008-05-23 13:58:07 UTC
Please open a separate bug for this distinct request.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links