Meta:Requests for interface adminship/AWight (WMDE)

AWight (WMDE)

• AWight (WMDE) (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy)  Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Ending 29 June 2020 08:35 (UTC)

I'd like to manage translation strings for a QuickSurvey over the next few weeks. Our messages are numerous, and may require some slight changes after deployment. It seems best if I'm able to edit them directly rather than asking someone else to make these changes. I will edit only these survey messages in the MediaWiki namespace, and nothing else in the interface. I'm currently a WMDE employee, and was previously a WMF staff developer. I've also been a CentralNotice admin as part of this latter job, so I'm familiar with the risks presented by interface messages. I have 2FA enabled on my account. --Adamw (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Support No reason to oppose, user needs the permission, and as a WMDE employee with shell access to the servers, trust is not an issue. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Martin Urbanec: Based on the use case, as confirmed below, it does not appear the user needs this permission, and that the limited administrator permission is more appropriate, also that all the 2FA hoops they were sent to were unnecessary. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, okay - I support a limited adminship as well. 2FA is never an issue, through ;). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just a question: is this your account as an employee of WMDE, or do you simply happen to be an employee of WMDE? --MF-W 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for asking this question, I should have made that clear in my request. I'm deploying surveys in my official role supporting the WMDE Technical Wishes team, and I would strictly use interface admin privileges for those duties. As for this account, I've also used it for personal and WMF-related purposes over the years. Saying this out loud, it feels messy: I've gone ahead and created a designated role account "AWight (WMDE)", please consider my access request to apply to either of these usernames now. The only drawback to the alternative account is that, on account of this feature I don't have 2FA set up on that account. I would need to ask for oathauth-enable rights first, or however that's normally done. --Adamw (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It probably makes sense to give the right to your new (WMDE) account then, I think. For enabling 2FA on it, it's maybe the easiest if you will just enable it immediately after being granted interface-adminship by a friendly bureaucrat to avoid more bureaucracy. --MF-W 12:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I've granted oathauth-enable to the role account, so you can do that either now, or as MF-W suggests, after . --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
        • The "AWight (WMDE)" account has 2FA enabled now, thanks for the help. --Adamw (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've changed the request to use my alternative, staff account. --Adamw (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you need to update js/css files? This seems more like a use case for limited administrator access rather than the more security impacting int-admin access? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to update JS/CSS. Limiting access to a short length of time seems ideal to me. I don't understand the nuances of limited administrator vs. interface-admin, so I leave that up to you, I'll just mention I that only need to edit messages such as MediaWiki:Wmde-tw-template-survey-prototype2-question. In fact, Martin Urbanec was able to run Special:Import on an archive of the initial messages, so the urgency is decreased from my perspective. Now I would simply be making small edits to messages in case of mistakes and to clarify text. --Adamw (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose int-admin;  Support using this as a limited-admin application with the original timeframe. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  @AWight (WMDE) and Adamw: are you good with this being for Meta:Administrators#Limited_administrator_status? The limit would be broadly construed to maintaining (e.g. editing, protecting, deleting, etc.) the messages/pages related to the survey, and the duration would be a month. Also, this discussion wouldn't need to be open for a month, it can be just a week. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  For sure, thanks for working through this. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, for example by refiling the request. --Adamw (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  You don't need to bother with that bureaucracy, we can handle that ;) Just for clarification: what would be the best duration for the rights? Is the standard one month okay or does the project last longer? --MF-W 17:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't quite know yet, but it makes sense to start with one month because I expect the messages to stabilize within that time. In the distant future, we'll probably want to delete the unused messages when cleaning up, but deletion is straightforward and maybe I would even ask to run deleteBatch.php on the server. --Adamw (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Done Temporary adminship for one month, for the stated purposes. --MF-W 14:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)