Meta:Requests for comment/Create a 2FA tester local meta usergroup

The following request for comments is closed. Consensus not to enact. Vermont (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue edit

Per Meta:Requests_for_comment/Enable_2FA_on_meta_for_all_users and a short discussion on babel which some users feedback to me that RFC is more appropriate so here we are.

The group to be set up is 2FA Tester group. Group rights are oauth-enable . The propose place of granting of the rights is ~~still SRGP~~ RFH. Initially there will be a message at SRGP to redirect these requests to RFH. All meta sysops and stewards will be given access to grant /revoke the rights.

As of the global group, it can be either depreciated / remain but not granted. The 1st option will reduce confusion, but existing 2FA testers need to switch over and we need to do some work locally / globally. For 2nd option, there may be some confusion but easier in administering.

The scope of this RFC is then 2 parts

Support this usergroup / oppose this usergroup
Depreciate the global group / having it alongside

Hope for your feedback and thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

There would be no need to bother SRGP for this, stewards don't need to act when local volunteers can, so using RFH should suffice. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: The reason why I say SRGP is that SRGP have better record keeping as well as the fact that I don't want too much tethering problem of users don't know where to request the right. I don't mind RFH too.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only record keeping this should need would be a link in the rights log, that can be done with PermaLinks. At least initially we could put a link on SRGP to RFH for anyone following old links. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, shall change it accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, let's take a load off the stewards. I support this usergroup and depreciating the global group, as it would be redundant. ~riley (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the name of the group should be just "2FA" or "two-factor authentication". The testing ended long ago. Ruslik (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be something like oathauth-user, and we can localize it then. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be in favor of adding strong warnings to the page, like in the examples I put on the other RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: reasons. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Largely per MA. A clearer need and rationale for this change is required. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per ~riley and Ruslik0. —Sgd. Hasley 23:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support shouldn't deprecate the global ones as this one is locally activated (if possible) but there are 2 opinions by stewards (we are not swamped by request vs we are just a rubber stamper).--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 09:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand what we benefit from allowing Meta admins to do this over stewards. Leaderboard (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per above. --MF-W 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a reason why there is no local group. Everyone is unlikely to abide by the warnings.If users lose the 2FA, the account is broken.A local group will likely lead to more use of the 2FA and eventually there will be many accounts with no access.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MarcoAurelio. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 09:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Syman51 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]