User talk:Redmin: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 17:16, 8 January 2021

Protecting interface messages in MediaWiki namespace

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi R4356th,

While I can see your rationale for protecting interface messages, as you did with wanting to protect MediaWiki:Edittools at Consul level of protection in this log action, I do disagree with it, personally and philosophically, as this is, ultimately, a test wiki, with active consuls, bureaucrats, or even administrators, for that matter, with the technical ability to rollback or undo edits that are problematic in some way. This is where good common sense comes in terms for test administrators and mostly test bureaucrats. As such, I have reverted this protection for the following reasons, namely that:

If you felt protection at consul was warranted, then you should've reached out to any Consul via their locally user talk page, ideally, with your reason(s) why for them to effect. Protecting a page at bureaucrat when you feel consul protection is warranted doesn't make sense, and wouldn't be appropriate; and, perhaps more importantly,
This is after all a test wiki, so other than some CSS/JS files in MediaWiki namespace, protection isn't needed on most interface messages, as we have active consuls, bureaucrats, or even administrators, for that matter, where edits are problematic in some way.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks,
Dmehus (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Hi R4356th,
-While I ''can'' see your rationale for protecting [[Special:AllMessages|interface messages]], as you did with wanting to protect [[MediaWiki:Edittools]] at [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] level of protection in this [[Special:Redirect/logid/14008|log action]], I ''do'' disagree with it, personally and philosophically, as this is, ultimately, a test wiki, with active consuls, bureaucrats, or even administrators, for that matter, where edits are problematic in some way. This is where good [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] comes in terms for test administrators and mostly test bureaucrats. As such, I have [[Special:Redirect/logid/14009|reverted]] this protection for the following reasons, namely that:
+While I ''can'' see your rationale for protecting [[Special:AllMessages|interface messages]], as you did with wanting to protect [[MediaWiki:Edittools]] at [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] level of protection in this [[Special:Redirect/logid/14008|log action]], I ''do'' disagree with it, personally and philosophically, as this is, ultimately, a test wiki, with active consuls, bureaucrats, or even administrators, for that matter, with the technical ability to <code>rollback</code> or <code>undo</code> edits that are problematic in some way. This is where good [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] comes in terms for test administrators and mostly test bureaucrats. As such, I have [[Special:Redirect/logid/14009|reverted]] this protection for the following reasons, namely that:
 # If you felt protection at <code>[[TestWiki:Consuls|consul]]</code> was warranted, then you should've reached out to any Consul via their locally user talk page, ideally, with your reason(s) why for them to effect. Protecting a page at <code>[[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]]</code> when you feel <code>consul</code> protection is warranted doesn't make sense, and wouldn't be appropriate; and, perhaps more importantly,
 # This is after all a test wiki, so other than some CSS/JS files in MediaWiki namespace, protection isn't needed on most interface messages, as we have active consuls, bureaucrats, or even administrators, for that matter, where edits are problematic in some way.