Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 13
    I raised this as a possibility internally. We're optimistic that this idea could work, and agree that would alleviate a number of community pain points around this change. We do need to do some technical/trade exploration before we can commit to it, so don't take this as a firm "yes" - yet. Commented Sep 23, 2024 at 14:56
  • 5
    Small update here. Based on the data we're seeing from the logging mode we're currently running, we actually suspect there should be very few (if any) new false positive detections of community tools / scripts. So for now I'll say that this approach is definitely still an option, but it's likely to be something we consider as a fallback, rather than something we implement at the start. Commented Sep 26, 2024 at 20:36
  • 3
    Thank you for being transparent. I hope that your logging doesn't miss significant cases of user scripts/similar applications and that you are able to minimize false positives as much as possible (even though I still think it would be preferable to not restrict pages that don'tneed to be restricted). Commented Sep 26, 2024 at 21:33
  • 2
    @dan1st I hope so, too! Commented Sep 26, 2024 at 22:28