Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter


meta:Technical administratorsEdit

aka "the Kww safeguard". :p Ben · Salvidrim!  19:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Are the process and standards en.wp will use to grant this right being discussed anywhere? I can't spot anything at WP:AN, WP:VPP, WP:VPT, WP:VPPRO or WP:BN. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think we've gotten that far. Deployment will certainly happen some time after the consultation process, which starts July 9 and runs for two weeks. We should probably wait until after that to figure out our process, in case things change. MusikAnimal talk 22:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Seems to me like it should be similar to EFM, which also has the potential of affecting all users of a project if mishandled accidentally or intentionally. Ben · Salvidrim!  17:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    No. Edit filters are trivial compared to what you can do with JavaScript. "Technical administrator" should be put well above adminship, even highly restricted rights like CheckUser MusikAnimal talk 14:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    But, I should add that the number of people who actually would benefit from "tech admin" is very small, even here on enwiki. It should be obvious who these people are, and I can even name most of them off the top of my head. So in other words I don't think (or at least hope) that "Request For Tech Adminship" will be a thing. MusikAnimal talk 19:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
What? You want a safeguard against someone turning off broken tools? Despite the Foundation's smear campaign to the contrary, that was a very effective and thoroughly tested fix.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing! I just wonder if the VE thing planted the seed on the WMF's mind that they want to restrict someone pages further than the usual any-admin-FPP. Ben · Salvidrim!  17:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not. There is no other major website that lets you touch JavaScript. On Wikipedia, it is a necessary evil because it allows us to build tools that greatly benefit the project, giving us full control over clientside functionality. In reality, it is a major security risk. "Technical administrator" isn't even a great solution, but it's a vast improvement. The community can still grant the new user group to anyone they so please (but I sure hope we'll be very restrictive about it). This is not a new form of superprotect MusikAnimal talk 14:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

2FA as percent of active adminsEdit

Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago.

I'd be more curious about the percentage of active admins who have 2FA enabled. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was about to agree with this, but then I had some additional thoughts on the matter: We all know at this point that a portion of admins don’t really do admin work and just hang on to the tools for no very good reason. By doing so they present the exact same security risk as an active admin. Therefore the risk is the same whether they are active or not. Yet another reason for admin activity standards to be tightened, but that has proven difficult. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. It doesn't matter if you only make one edit a year. If you are a sysop, and you don't practice good account security, you're putting us all at risk. 2FA is surely the best thing you can do, but not everyone is willing. I agree activity requirements could be improved. I think it'd make most sense to require actual admin actions, not just any ole logged action MusikAnimal talk 14:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I would support increasing the activity requirements for admins. I would also like to see the requirements increased for editors who return and request the tools back. Mkdw talk 15:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I did manage to get a tiny change to the rules passed earlier this year. I would suggest any new proposal be similarly modest in its goals if it is to have any chance of success. And as always, I shamelessly suggest anyone contemplating opening such an RFC read my essay on the subject first. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
An issue I had originally was that, running an admin bot how do I use 2FA for both accounts with one smartphone? This was after this posting - c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_69#URGENT:_CHANGE_PW_/_ENABLE_Two-factor_authentication, where commons is being a little more aggressive on use of 2FA due to some compromise of an account (and I am an admin there as well). In the end I solved my issue with a tiny (12 line) python program to give me both 2FA codes on running. And of course, I then had to create a bot password for the normal running of the bot. Ronhjones  (Talk) 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick TechAdmin questionEdit

So are you going to track techadmin changes on this newsletter? — regards, Revi 05:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we can make mention of new appointments, sure, like we do for the ombudsman commission, functionaries and stewards. It's relevant news, after all, so seems appropriate. However ideally there won't be many techadmin changes, because the entire point is to keep the members of this user group to a minimum. MusikAnimal talk 02:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've listed the six temporary interface administrators at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2018/9. Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please fix block linkEdit

Can you please fix the Special:Block link in the newsletter so it points to an info page? As a non-admin, I clicked it to see what "Special:Block" was, and got a permission error page, sayimg I don't have permission to block this user. I'm glad of that, but even for those who have perms, you don't really want a link in a newsletter that allows this, do you? Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Block is the precise page we're talking about, though. There's really nothing to see anyway, as the UI overhaul isn't live yet. For that see the designs that were linked to in the newsletter MusikAnimal talk 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Voice of Clam renameEdit

  Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter/2018/9: We generally redirect the talk pages of individual newsletters here to centralize discussion. Mz7 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Are admin renames generally reported? I've just changed mine. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: We talked about this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter#Renames of administrator accounts. I don't think there were any loud objections on the proviso that we first get the consent of the administrator in question before putting it in the newsletter. Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not being secretive about it, so feel free to include it. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  Done Mz7 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Testing questionEdit

(non-admin question) I saw in the newsletter this an invitation to help with testing once it is available. Are they looking for people to be test-blocked or just admins to try it out? In case of the former, I'm (and I assume others) game only if it stays off my permanent block log. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

They are looking for the latter. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Administrators' newsletter".