Commons:Administrators/Requests/Lucas Werkmeister (interface administrator)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 31;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 0 — 93.93% Result: Successful. odder (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Werkmeister (interface administrator)

Vote

Lucas Werkmeister (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · 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)[reply]

Votes

@Mirer: Could you explain how admins more experienced than you and this candidate is biased? Thanks. 1989 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]