This page is used by Enterprisey to test scripts that use the talk page, like reply-link.

a

The following discussion 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.

b

x

c

y

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.

d

Advanced Search

Advanced Search will become a default feature on your wiki on November 28. This new interface allows you to perform specialized searches on the search page, even if you don’t know any search syntax. Advanced Search originates from the German Community’s Technical Wishes project. It's already a default feature on German, Arabic, Farsi and Hungarian Wikipedia. Besides, more than 40.000 users across all wikis have tested the beta version. Feedback is welcome on the central feedback page.

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is now live it seems. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

m, Enterprisey (talk!) 03:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

x

new content User:X1\ (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

t2

Oppose, almost there. This proposal is actually a nice compromise, minus that it does not require a demonstrated need, for what is the most sensitive user right available. I'd like to see that in the print, however fine it may be. Interface admin is not for hat collecting. We need to see a good reason as to why they want to use it, and some evidence they'd know how to. I also would prefer 3 or 4-day waiting period. 48 hours would cover only a weekend, when many people are away from the wiki. A week long process (from the first RfC above) indeed is rather long -- that I agree with. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- EFM does not require a demonstrated need as well and is also very sensitive. The reason IA was created was, from all that was written, to reduce security risks by limiting the pool of users who actually have it. But the underlying assumption of this proposal is that admins are already trusted users (and almost all of them had this right for years without problem) and thus can and should be relied upon not to request this right if they do not plan to use it (again similar to WP:EFM). Imho, if there really are admins who request this right solely for "hat collecting", they are not suitable to be admins, IA or not and should be dealt with based on this. Adding a "need" requirement also might make it seem like that admins cannot be inherently trusted to do that. As for waiting period, this proposal authorizes crats to grant the right after the period. It does not force them to. If there are any reasons to wait longer, we can rely on their judgment to just do so. Even on the weekends we can usually expect someone to say something within 48 hours if there are concerns (plus, admins can be resysoped after 24 hours and that is not problematic either). Regards SoWhy 07:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - EFM I don't think is a good example, as it pales in comparison to why you can do with interface admin. Powerful, yes, but a matter of security? No. Anyway, all I'm asking is to explicitly say you should have a "demonstrated need". Some vetting of technical competency may be appropriate, but this is less important. I just don't want to give the impression that this right is easily attainable upon request, and can be used for one-off purposes when it would take less time and effort to simply ask existing interface admins to do it for you. Again, I'm not talking about trust -- admins already proved that with their RfA (in general :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Support ~~per MusikAnimal, will change to support if a requirement for demonstrated need is added.~~ Enterprisey (talk!) 04:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Let's just pass something. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]