Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2016

Fixed min/max time for translation administrator requests

I think there should be a minimum and a maximum of time. I'd say that we can grant this if in 72 hours there's no objections. If they are, we can extend to a maximum of 48 hours, after which if there's no consensus the request is denied. That is: 3 days (+2 days in case of objections). —MarcoAurelio 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say, that we should just grant it when there is a reasonable request. I granted the right in the past even without any on-wiki request when it was reasonable to me and and knew the person is trustworthy. No need to add any sort of extra bureaucracy, imo. I'm still, since like ever, of the opinion, that we should use our common sense as much as possible and that right isn't really worth that much bureaucracy, imo. I think that the crats on this project are trusted enough to deal with that. -Barras talk 12:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but IMHO there's a thin line between discretionary and arbitrary, and at least some period of public commentary and announcement does not harm. Commons, for example, uses a delay of 48 hours. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 12:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Barras, especially since this is a purely technical permission. --Vogone (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Barras and Vogone, I see no problem on this permission to be granted discretionally by bureaucrats, althought they could let other users to comment in order to obtain feedback.--Syum90 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If we finally move to discrectionary granting, I'd say that we could then manage this permissions on RFH, as we do with MassMessage permissions. However I insist that waiting a day or two for feedback won't do harm. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 15:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlike MassMessage permissions, translationadmin permissions can only be granted by bureaucrats. I would rather tend to say we should move clutter away from RFH rather than the other way around. --Vogone (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think no such rule is needed either. --MF-W 00:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I'm OK with the status quo for this one. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think time to comment could be also determined discretionally by bureaucrats case by case. Agree with requesting the permission on RFH. If we leave only tasks that can be done by admins we can rename the page to "Meta:Requests for help from a sysop".--Syum90 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Or administrators noticeboard, but that'd be for another debate. Let's focus on TA requests. If we should continue handling them here and if there should be a max./min. time the discussion should last prior to approval or rejection. —MarcoAurelio 16:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Inputbox

I wonder if the community likes the inputbox at Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_regular_adminship and if they'd find useful to extend the utility to other sections of the page as well, so the candidate or nominator just has to bother to fill the reason for their candidacy or nomination, and transclude it on the main page. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support:That's a great idea.--Bowleerin (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• It's a good idea, and I'd be fine with seeing it extended to the other sections as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am pro it for non-admin nominations and neutral concerning admin (sysop I mean) ones — it should be somehow hard to make a proper admin nomination, so that the person could show that they are able to understand how stuff works or something like that. --Base (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I like the inputbox and I'm agree on extending it to other sections as well.--Syum90 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Having the input box to these rights is pretty useful for filling the requests. RadiX∞ 11:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Will be really helpful --Ochilov (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• No, this is utterly useless. --MF-W 23:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per MF-W and Base. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think it's necessary. — regards, Revi 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

CentralNotice adminship

I'm not sure about Special:Diff/16060602. Does the Foundation have some sort of veto power now in this kind of requests? —MarcoAurelio 17:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I asked about it on User_talk:Seddon_(WMF)#Centralnotice_RFAs already. --MF-W 18:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I've emailed you both. I hope that alleviates any concerns you both had. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please consider to give a public answer, as there are more people interested in hearing the reason. --Krd 08:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, as crat here I'm one of the people who should also be informed. Please make a public statement, otherwise people won't follow your wish. -Barras talk 21:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I will try and post here a full and complete explanation as soon as possible. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Seddon (WMF): Thank you. Until this happen, can we revert the named edit to avoid additional confusion? --Krd 06:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Done for now. For what it is worth, there is a current CN admin request. --Vogone (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)