Commons:Administrators/Requests/Lucas Werkmeister (interface administrator)
Support = 31;
Oppose = 2;
Neutral = 0 — 93.93% Result: Successful. odder (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Lucas Werkmeister (interface administrator)
Lucas Werkmeister (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
- Scheduled to end: 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I’m the author of the AC/DC gadget. It started out as a user script, but now that it’s a gadget, I can no longer edit it directly. I can use {{Edit request}} on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ACDC.js, of course, but I figured asking for interface admin doesn’t hurt either :)
While Commons is not my main wiki, I do have some volume of contributions here that I hope doesn’t look too disagreeable. I’ve also written another tool that’s mainly useful for Commons (though, unlike AC/DC, isn’t exclusive to it): QuickCategories, a way to mass-edit categories that has already been used for over 300 000 edits according to Special:Tags. In my day job, I’m a software developer for Wikimedia Germany, so some code from me is already running here no matter how this request turns out ;)
My account is reasonably well-protected –
on all the main computers where I’m logged into this account,
either the home partition or the complete disk is encrypted,
and once I get the the right I will of course enable 2FA (at the moment I’m not allowed to)
I have two-factor authentication enabled.
I might currently be logged in on a few other devices, but I can reset my password to terminate those sessions.
The big question is my phone – I’m currently logged in there and it’s not particularly secure.
How do other interface admins handle this?
I could log out, but sometimes it’s useful to be able to see notifications there.
(T153454 would help here, but doesn’t look like it will happen soon.)
Commons doesn’t seem to have partial blocks enabled (yet?) as far as I can tell, but otherwise I wouldn’t mind being blocked from editing particularly sensitive pages, e. g. common.js and gadgets that are enabled by default, since the main purpose of this request is just one gadget. (On the other hand, I’d be happy to help with development on other gadgets too.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Votes
Support Lucas Werkmeister is a trustworthy Wikimedian. — Envlh (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Yes he is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Definitely the case, has earned it. Sadads (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose As there appears to be a way around this besides giving you access to the entire interface. You have less than 3,000 edits here and no other advanced rights anywhere except the test wiki so I'm unable to even glean your ability to be trustworthy besides what I have in front of me. 3,000 edits is barely enough for regular adminship and in my opinion interface adminship is far more dangerous due to the ability to affect everyone from users to readers. I have no idea why Jean-Frédéric thought it would be ok to make your script into a gadget thereby locking you out of it but I don't feel like giving you access to the entirety of the interface to rectify that is the best course of action when there are alternatives. --Majora (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) is a Wikidata administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Wikidata Staff. That group is mostly equivalent to Administrator (and tbh I’m not sure if the differences are intentional or not – for example, Staff can’t manage tags), but I’m not supposed to exercise those rights most of the time. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) is a Wikidata administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per above. 1989 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Support If you know what you do, you know what you do. And another categorizing 10.000 files here won't improve that knowledge. I have way more trust in Lucas than in some biased admins here with tens of thousands of edits. --Mirer (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Mirer: Could you explain how admins more experienced than you and this candidate is biased? Thanks. 1989 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Support I trust Lucas. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Lucas is probably the best person to be interface administrator; he maybe doesn't have much experience on Commons but he clearly have plenty of experience in interface. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Support per VIGNERON --DCB (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Support per Envlh and Vigneron. Pymouss Let’s talk - 12:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Support, no problems--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Jianhui67 T★C 04:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Per my original suggestion. Sure, Lucas has not been a super-active user yet here on Commons, but the way I see it is: we have here a colleague primarily from another Wiki (Wikidata), technically-minded and highly competent, who has been developing tools for Wikimedia Commons. I see clear potential for Lucas to be involved in the maintenance and development of various gadgets and scripts. And overall, Lucas has long-demonstrated his trustworthiness and dedication to the Wikimedia projects, and I have no doubt he can be trusted with both using the advanced permissions and securing his account appropriately. Jean-Fred (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support of course, trusted user. Multichill (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support. I think communicating first with original authors or other interface editors is better solution then partial pages protection. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support- FitIndia Talk Mail 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support - Per VIGNERON. Highly trusterd User. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Support without any arguments. Masum Reza📞 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Support User with proven technical competence on the work they want to do. 3K edits is reasonable at any sensible standard. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Support They are here to help, undoubtedly. Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 04:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Support - CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Support --大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Enough experience here to be trusted to get Commons in general, definitely enough experience in general Wikimedia technical spaces to be able to handle the interface administrator rights, and reason to ask for the user right. That's pretty much what I ask for. /Julle (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Support. -- Geagea (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support --GPSLeo (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -FASTILY 09:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support. Érico (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support - obvious support for someone who responsible, capable and trusted with elevated rights on Wikidata already, showing he is thoughtful and knows what he is doing. -- Fuzheado (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments
- If you are the maintainer wouldn't you be able to put this in your userspace and then have the MediaWiki page directed to that? --Majora (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, are there other gadgets that do this? I’m not sure I like the sound of gadgets redirecting back into less-privileged space. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- There really wouldn't be a difference. It would still allow you to make changes and we wouldn't be giving you access to the entire interface. Seems a little silly to be afraid of the consequences of having one script be redirected and not of giving you access to things that affect everyone down the the readers who don't even login. The only reason the script was even moved from your userspace to begin with was to make it easier for others to use it. --Majora (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Majora: I was thinking about this more from another perspective. If I was some other user who had never heard of this Lucas Werkmeister guy, and I noticed that this gadget just redirected to that user’s page, I might think something like, “who even is this guy? What gives him the right to edit a gadget, with no formal endorsement from the community beyond whoever set up the redirect?” That’s why I’m curious if any other gadgets do that already. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- There really wouldn't be a difference. It would still allow you to make changes and we wouldn't be giving you access to the entire interface. Seems a little silly to be afraid of the consequences of having one script be redirected and not of giving you access to things that affect everyone down the the readers who don't even login. The only reason the script was even moved from your userspace to begin with was to make it easier for others to use it. --Majora (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, are there other gadgets that do this? I’m not sure I like the sound of gadgets redirecting back into less-privileged space. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment I have no idea why Jean-Frédéric thought it would be ok to make your script into a gadget thereby locking you out of it
- Hello there. I am not entirely sure how to interpret that comment − for clarity, I had discussed it with Lucas beforehand (I guess I could have made it clearer that it would only be editable by interface admins after that). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- For further clarity, I’m definitely not mad at Jean-Fred :) I think on some level I was aware that I wouldn’t be able to edit the gadget version as easily, though it still caught me by surprise a bit when it happened. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello there. I am not entirely sure how to interpret that comment − for clarity, I had discussed it with Lucas beforehand (I guess I could have made it clearer that it would only be editable by interface admins after that). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I realized that being a sysop on testwiki/testcommonswiki (for testing purposes) allows me to enable 2FA already, so now I’ve done so :) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Lucas Werkmeister: You could also ask for oauth-tester right on meta-wiki to be able to use 2FA. Masum Reza📞 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)