Meta talk:Interface administrators

Active discussions

2FA requirementEdit

Hello @Jalexander-WMF: thank you for placing the 2FA requirements notice on this page. Can you clarify if this requirement is for all of the WMF projects (as opposed to only here on meta:)? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): do you know anything on this since you are communicating about other password requirement? — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It does. See also Special global permissions. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC) P.S.: You're right, this should probably be at Interface administrators instead; the meta-bespoke content is limited. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Jalexander-WMF, User:Jdforrester (WMF): When is this being enforced? As far as I understand, this is so far not possible since phab:T150562 is not yet resolved. Is that correct? Nirmos (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nirmos: looks like it is currently being enforce via an audit/update manual process by WMF T&S. — xaosflux Talk 13:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Would it be better to change the following:

  1. [[Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_adminship|Meta:Requests for adminship]] to
    1. [[<tvar|req>Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_adminship</>|Meta:Requests for adminship]] or
    2. <tvar|req>[[Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_adminship|Meta:Requests for adminship]]</>
  2. [[Meta:Administrators|Administrators]] to [[<tvar|admin>Meta:Administrators</>|Administrators]]
  3. [[Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_requesting_adminship]] to <tvar|policy>[[Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_requesting_adminship]]</>
  4. [[Special:listusers/interface-admin|interface administrators]] to [[<tvar|list>Special:listusers/interface-admin</>|interface administrators]]

-- Minorax (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ~riley (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to amend: Use RFH for admins and RFA for non-adminsEdit

Hello. Currently regular administrators may be given the interface-admin permissions upon request. In all cases I remember this was an automatic formalism. As such I don't see much point in requiring our admins to create a [[Meta:Requests for interface adminship/$admin_name]] only to be closed minutes afterwards. For those cases I think administrators should be using WM:RFH instead in order to reduce the unnecesary red tape. There's also no reduction on transparency as RfH is widely watched and in any case a diff or permalink will be used in the user rights log by the granting bureaucrat. RfH is also monthly archived.

For non-administrators, given that it requires discussion, I'd indeed keep the WM:RFA process as it requires one week of discussion which would benefit from its own place.

I am therefore proposing that the "Requesting interface adminship" heading be amended as follows:

== Requesting interface adminship ==
The process for requesting interface adminship on Meta-Wiki is different for administrators and non-administrators:

(subject to style/grammar/ortographic corrections)

Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support Perhaps for archives we can still put the permalink of the RFH request on the RFA archives? Or else makes perfect sense as the additional page indeed serve little to no purpose and are speedy closed per policy. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • +1, and agree with CM as well. —Sgd. Hasley 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Very good; let's also continue to mention the requests on WM:RFA/Archives as proposed. --MF-W 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Minorax (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support as above. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose it doesn't really matter, our IAdmin policy is rather sparse - for meta admins: access is not required to be granted, community consensus is not required either - it simply "may" be given - so it really is just at the discretion of any passing bureaucrat, who should at the least be asking if 2FA is enabled if it wasn't already stated as such. In any case, the policy requires involuntarily defroked iadminss to actually run an RFA - and this shouldn't be changed. — xaosflux Talk 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support The current process for admins requesting IA is purely bureaucratic; let's remove this red tape. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I also support adding a note on Meta:Admin that they must confirm that 2FA has been enabled before being granted IA. ~riley (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Keep things simple and only have as much process as it helps the community function. Deryck C. 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support · Good proposal. -- CptViraj ( ) 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tiven2240 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Base (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Unnecessary bureaucracy, --Esteban16 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the page according to the unanimous support here. --MF-W 13:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Interface administrators".