On 18 January 2012 18:20, Dan Collins <dcoll...@stevens.edu> wrote: > Michael, > As was mentioned here, a 503 would be the most appropriate HTTP response > code to serve. It would also prevent non-js users and text-only users from > bypassing, it would avoid the flicker effect, and would cause search > engines to correctly "back off" trying to index our pages. It would also > correctly shut down all editing (if the site can not be read, why do you > need "emergency" edit rights anyway?) I have no idea why this ineffective > kludge was effected instead.
I don't understand why it was done this way either... the consensus was for a full blackout, so why not just set all the squids to redirect to a page with the banner and explanation along with a 503 status code and be done with it? I was rather concerned by people thinking we need to allow "emergency access" - what kind of emergencies are going to mean people need Wikipedia? And is everyone having such an emergency going to have read the FAQ and know how to get around the blackout? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
