@Krenair Re-tagging with MediaWiki-General, since the group is part of mediawiki-core, and the request is probably to add the permission on all-instances rather than just Wikimedia-hosted ones.

So...this reminds me of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_configuration_changes, which says that "Grant Interface admins other permissions" is forbidden. Adding editprotected sounds like a harmless idea, however, it could make wikis grant interface admins "just to make users able to edit protected pages", which shouldn't happen - no one who doesn't need to edit JS/CSS should ever be in that group.

@Ladsgroup @Tgr Any opinions on this?

It sounds slightly weird to me, IMO being admin should be a prerequisite to being interface-admin and a wiki should not give that right so easily that non-admins can get it... I think it defies the whole point of having interface-admin in the first place (which we had to do because of attacks carried out on admins)

@Urbanecm: I can see it being interpreted either way - at the time this task was named for Wikipedias :) But I don't mind

In T268948#6654563, @Ladsgroup wrote:

It sounds slightly weird to me, IMO being admin should be a prerequisite to being interface-admin and a wiki should not give that right so easily that non-admins can get it... I think it defies the whole point of having interface-admin in the first place (which we had to do because of attacks carried out on admins)

I think there's a distinction between people having to hold admin vs. people being trusted to the level that they could be given admin if they had a use for it. The majority of people who hold GIE do not hold GS but probably could. Having said that I agree it's still a bit weird. I also can also kind of understand why and don't think it's particularly high risk.

This task reminds me of the distinction between template editor and interface editor that exists on enwiki.

I think overall I agree with Ladsgroup that this is crossing the line at which the individual who needs to do this should probably get traditional administrator rights - though I recognise that on some wikis this may be too specific a reason to justify the process involved

Tough one. Many people in the various admin-appointment processes have criteria beyond trust - such as knowing policies in areas like deletion that have little to do with security - and I would not categorically assume that folks trusted to hold IE will also be trusted to hold full admin rights.

Is there an use case for IE to have protected page editing? The js and css and similar pages that IE is about are by default protected by the software and don't need/have manual protection on top of it.

Don't know about other wikis, but on Polish Wikipedia the ui admin is someone with technical knowledge and technical abilities. Sysop is someone doing moderator work. Which has some requirements of being active etc. We actually had a long debate befor ui admin that this should be something available for technical people that don't need to or don't have time to sit on RC etc.

So that separation is a fact for Polish Wikipedia. And I am an ex-sysop, currently just ui admin.