Wikinews:Requests for permissions/InterfaceAdmin/George Ho

George Ho

Nominating sysop who is frequently available to assist with editing pages in MediaWiki namespace if needed. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T378519 Thanks Gryllida (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. user is not a sysop currently which i thought they were Gryllida (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Links for George Ho: George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Thanks, but I'm unsure whether I'm fully qualified for the work intended by the role. --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gryllida: why can't you do it? Leaderboard (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i can, i also applied. for fancy reason administrators used to be able to do it but then the system changed and it is a separate user right Gryllida (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense for George Ho to be an admin first? I have no doubt that he can be trusted but I have never seen someone be an InterfaceAdmin without being an admin. And given the comment "Thanks, but I'm unsure whether I'm fully qualified for the work intended by the role." I think it would make more sense to ask if George would help out being an admin instead. --MGA73 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gryllida, did you mean to nominate George Ho for just the permission "InterfaceAdmin" or for full admin? When I first saw the request, I assumed they were already admin but now I see they aren't. So like MGA73, I'm confused by the request. Can the limited privilege be assigned to a non-admin? Is there a specific problem you are hoping to address by giving these privileges when they weren't requested or seemingly desired by George Ho? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was also confused seeing the reply above. For clarification now I have inquired at George's talk page. Gryllida (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I was surprised to see they're not sysop yet. In my nomination I wrote that they are. My mistake. I didn't check beforehand.) Gryllida (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I accept this nomination, shall the role be permanent or temporary? On the safer side, I prefer temporary, like three months, six months, one year, or... —George Ho (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It stays on until WN:PeP. You may request another expiry if you prefer. Gryllida (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request another expiry then? George Ho (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a note here in this comments page, and I am happy to apply the expiry as you requested. Gryllida (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are we voting to grant the InterfaceAdmin privilege temporarily and solely to address this Phabricator ticket? The request mentions "if needed," which raises some concerns. While this is not a reflection on George Ho's character or trustworthiness, it is worth noting that they have not been vetted by the community for any other elevated privileges. Given the significant power associated with InterfaceAdmin, I feel it is important to approach this decision cautiously.

Voters should understand exactly what InterfaceAdmin privileges include:

Interface administrators can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage [emphasis added]).

additionally;

Editing CSS/JS that gets executed in other users' browsers is very powerful and potentially dangerous in the hands of a malicious user.

For this reason, it is crucial that the request clearly outlines the specific purpose and necessity of granting these privileges. Alternatively, Gryllida, who is already a trusted Bureaucrat, could temporarily assign the InterfaceAdmin role to herself to address the Phabricator ticket, which seems like a more straightforward and secure solution to achieve the desired outcome (assuming this is strictly to address the existing Phabricator ticket). —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only for that ticket - for maintainance - as I cannot be the only one with access to edit essential site JavaScript. Gryllida (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be the only one - Acagastya also has it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I please withdraw this nomination? I'm getting oppose votes, and the nomination likely won't pass. —George Ho (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'd support this one if candidate agrees Gryllida (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pitille02 (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is banned, please notice. Lemonaka (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying here. Who or what is banned? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lemonaka meant that Pitille02's account is globally locked for sockpuppetry and their vote should be discounted due to block evasion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The global block doesn't show up locally so when I looked for a block I didn't see one. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems there may not be a widespread understanding within the community of the full scope of what Interface Admin privileges enable an account to do. Additionally, there appears to be some confusion regarding George Ho’s current status, as they do not hold any elevated privileges and have not been vetted by the community for roles with lower levels of risk than Interface Admin. This observation is not a reflection on George Ho personally or their character, but rather an acknowledgment that the community has not yet had the opportunity to fully assess their suitability for elevated privileges.

Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that the individual is currently qualified to receive these elevated privileges, a point they themselves have acknowledged. Combined with their apparent lack of interest in holding such privileges, this suggests that it may not be the right fit for them at this time. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Michael lays out much of what is wrong with this. There also appears to be no requirement for a minimum of two concurrently serving interface admins — there's only one serving at the moment, in fact, which obviously means...there would be two if Gryllida granted IA to themselves. George Ho seems to have been, with no disrespect intended, randomly and unnecessarily selected. Heavy Water (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]