2017中国拳王赛厦门站12月开打

For Interface administrator assistance, see Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard.

百度 竞赛活动分为两个阶段开展，第一阶段是全体党员认真学习题库知识，进行网上随机答题；第二阶段是举行现场竞赛。

RFC: Increase inactivity requirement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus to increase the inactivity requirement to 12 months. As a result, interface administrators who have made no edits or other logged actions for at least 2 months, or who have made no edits using the permission for at least 12 months, should have their user right removed. Those who opposed this change argued that the current inactivity level suffices, citing the sensitive nature of the permission and its ease of restoration through a request at WP:BN. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Proposed:

In: Interface administrators who have made no edits or other logged actions for at least 2 months or who have made no edits using the permission for at least 6 months should have the user right removed.

• Change to Interface administrators who have made no edits or other logged actions for at least 2 months or who have made no edits using the permission for at least 6 months12 months should have the user right removed.

Recent discussion: Special:PermaLink/1200817440

Proposed reasoning: interface-admin actions are not very high, but are generally productive. For editors that are still generally active, but have less frequent interface updates having them have to re-request when needed is counterproductive. We currently have <10 int-admins, and this change is not expected to cause us to have 'too many' as the total-inactivity threshold is still low. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

• As proposed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• I have no problem with the proposed change. The 2 month requirement could be seen as unnecessarily stringent too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per what I said in the other discussion about being an infrequent user as a gadget maintainer and there being very few intadmins. Galobtter (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Also why do we have a two-month requirement? It seems WAY too strict. I think that editing requirements more similar to WP:INACTIVITY would better suit interface administrators: (1) Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period. (2) Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Somebody tell me why this wouldn't work supposing (2) were bumped up to 1000 edits or so. Schierbecker (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  The idea behind the 2-month requirement is probably to ensure that the user is still around. A completely dormant account is a bigger risk, since its legitimate user won't know if there are attempts to break in, as well as the fact that a user who abandoned their account won't suddenly changes the password; a completely inactive account is indistinguishable from a dormant one. Animal lover |666| 00:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support, though I'm fine with the 2-month general inactivity requirement. It's hard to overstate how potentially dangerous the intadmin right is, so it makes sense to remove it at the first sign of overall inactivity. It's just that use of the intadmin bit itself doesn't really come up super often, so the tool-use requirement needs a bit of calibration. Writ Keeper ?? 17:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I think there are multiple intadmins whose primary activity is to be the maintainer of a major gadget. Updates to that gadget can go more than 6 months without a deploy sometimes, so it is easy to lapse intadmin. {{IAER}}s aren't always great for updating major gadgets either. Sometimes the gadgets have custom deploy scripts that only one or two people know how to use. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• 'Support Volume of requests is not high. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, in deference to Xaosflux's judgement. I'm not familiar with interface admin actions enough to be able to evaluate this independently, but I trust Xaosflux as one of the admins most active in that area, and the proposal sounds reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, relatively strict overall activity requirements should remain in place, but there is much less need for "edits using the permission" to be so tightly monitored. CMD (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Low volume of requests & security considerations, it's the logical thing to do -Fastily 06:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a very reasonable change. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support users who are still active on the wiki shouldn't need to re-request rights if they don't use them too frequently but are still around --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, seems reasonable, and doesn't add any extra risks. There are extra risks with unused accounts, so let's keep that separate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think this is reasonable. The amount of actions is indeed pretty low, and if a person has an activity spike, they can easily dominate the amount of actions handled compared to the others. —TheDJ (talk ? contribs) 09:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Even retaining the "2 months" looks too strict. In general we need closer scrutiny that this and other admins don't get rusty but a very short deadline for using the tools is not the way to do that. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - there are only 3 legitimate reasons to make such requirements, in my opinion: to keep the site safe from account break-ins, to prevent low-activity users from taking action which violates recent changes to the rules, and go prevent the illusion of many users with the right from deterring nee users from requesting (or being granted) the right. The first is handled by the requirement of any action, the second is of low relevance (it's more of a concern for regular adminsbip), and with only 10 such users it should be clear we need many more. Animal lover |666| 00:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support: the purpose of the activity requirements are to ensure that the iadmin is active and has use for the tools. Adding bureaucracy and waiting time to active gadget maintainers who may not happen to use the tools every 6 months is not desirable. We have (and under the change still would have) quite few iadmins so the security risk is low (I'd say there's a higher risk in crat accounts/crat activity requirements). — Bilorv (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support: This seems like a minor, well thought out, and reasonable change. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support The proposed amendment is understandable. Jerium (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seems quite reasonable now that we have been able to see what the workload on interface administrators really is. Callanecc (talk ? contribs ? logs) 04:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable to me. The benefits outweigh the risks, as they say. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support People who are clearly still here shouldn't be penalized for not making reckless changes to fulfill a quota. Twelve months is a sufficient time period to extend this to, given the requirement that they make an edit or logged action within the last two months still exists. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• If a userright was created because it's meant to be used sparingly and for exceptional reasons, it's reasonable you could go a year without using it. –xeno^talk 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• Weak oppose, Given the absurdly low bar that we have for recieving intadmin privileges amongst administrators, and the relative sensitive nature of the permission, it makes sense to have a higher than normal activity requirement. While I don't have any issues with the current cohort retaining permissions indefinitely, the fact that an admin could theoretically have zero technical contributions for over a year (and with just 6 normal edits over the same period) and still be able to make major unsupervised changes to widely used gadgets is scary to me. Sohom (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weakly. Basically what Pppery said in the previous IANB convo (this comment, although I think 6 is the right number): an IA account is a security risk, and if it ain't being used, it's better to revolve the doors a bit. I'm fine if Xaosflux drags his feet a bit when the de-intadmin-ing comes up—it's not dire—but if anything it's an argument to up the number of Bureaucrats. If it's a gadget or script that needs doing, a slight wait for a 'crat to show up at BN ain't a bit deal. There's no waiting period for renewal, no stigma for renewal with a need that previously going inactive affects, and the presumably rotating cast is a subset of a subset, and a well-known one at that. I'm not a 'crat, but I imagine the double-asking that 2FA is still on might be the most annoying part. As for the (not-up-for-this-RFC) 2 month thing, I could see 3 months being better. ~ Amory (u ? t ? c) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, more crats = more people with intadmin-level access (since crats can self-assign), no? Galobtter (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I spent maybe two whole minutes debating whether to end that sentence with an exclamation point or not to emphasize the cheekiness of it, so time poorly spent! But sure, that's an argument you could make to just match the IA policy with the Crat policy (plus 2FA), or vice-versa I guess. Solving different problems. A (non-security-related) counter-point is that, for any given sysop, IA is dramatically easier to obtain. ~ Amory (u ? t ? c) 20:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• The premise of this request is that there is a shortage of interface admin work needing doing. The fact that we are less than six months after the time when there were 3-month-old interface-protected edit requests (!) shows that said premise is false. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with Sohom Datta's concerns (but don't find them "weak"). Having this permission removed for inactivity would basically mean nearly nothing to anyone, since if an admin who got busy in real life came back, they could just request the permission again and be nearly automatically regranted it, absent some compelling reason to not regrant it (like misuse of it earlier that arguably should have resulted in its removal-for-cause). ?—?SMcCandlish ? ￠???? 13:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• An important balance for security is that we should not have too many of these users, and the current requirements were built along those lines. It has been quite some time now, and we are not seeing administrators using this role as some sort of hat-collection (not surprised, as we don't expect that sort of behavior from our admins...). Some of our int-admins deal with infrequent issues such as maintaining certain gadgets. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Are we restoring rights to intadmins (if any) who lapsed under the six-month policy but never fell afoul of the new proposed policy? Schierbecker (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Given that they could already just ask for it back at BN, I doubt that's necessary. Writ Keeper ?? 17:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think keeping the rfc simple and as-is is a good idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, this is really just to stop future revolving doors at WP:BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• AIUI the system at the English Wikisource is a bit different, and it has some security advantages: They have a list of folks who are eligible for this user right, and when you need it, you set the bit, do your work, and then remove it. When you don't need it, you're not doing your everyday work with all your privs enabled. I don't know how much hassle this would be, especially if you have to ask someone else to enable it for you, but it might be worth thinking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing I just checked the last year of the userrights log at enwikisource and don't see a single instance of that behavior - and only enwikisource 'crats can change that flag; additionally I see an enwikisource intadmin with no use in over a year there --- so I don't think this is what you are thinking of? Perhaps you are thinking of the 'flood' flag? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Billinghurst should be able to tell us if my memory is wrong. It's been a long time since I heard about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: We don't typically do much editing in that space. Before we more formally discussed, we had a short term right allocation on request to the community, with light touch assessment by 'crat, noting a lot smaller community of admins, and less fiddlers. We didn't and have not had self-set IA. We have self-set AF and flood rights for admins. Typically we don't want that many permanent IA rights, and don't typically have a need. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment

Checkuser requires 18+

interface admin does not require 18+

interface admin can use JavaScript to privilege escalate to checkuser. 23.162.200.141 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to comment in too much detail publicly because WP:BEANS. However I don't think this is a threat scenario that is worth worrying too much about. Interface administrators have 2FA, are elected by the community, there's only like 10 of us, etc. This should mitigate a lot of the risk.

Also, why would being young make someone more likely to commit this kind of security incident? Are you sure that age correlates to this kind of thing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)