Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2017

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

sir, please give me adminship and protected user, because whenever I writes an article, somebody removes or deletes it without any mistake. My hard working is wasting. Please allow me some protection so that no one can delete my legal articles. AtharavRaj (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@AtharavRaj: hi, adminship is not required to create articles and gives no more editorial control, and it doesn't exist any "protected user" flag. Please note that this wiki is not Wikipedia . Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WMF Office Staff and Contractors, officewiki reference

When I was a contractor for the strategy process I did not have the access to the office wiki. If it is the case for other kinds of contractors too, then this wording should be updated as leading people to nowhere is not helpful. Jalexander-WMF, Mdennis, JSutherland I guess you guys would be able to rewrite that instruction. Also, on my experience I've learned that it applies also to the userrights which are not listed on the page, as the volunteers get them through other venues (e.g. MassMessage sender flag) — it should be reflected that it is so. --Base (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Base: Thanks, I'll work with the team to get some adjustments on there to update it. Appreciate the ping. Jalexander--WMF 19:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to Meta:Requests for permissions

This page is for requests for permissions of all types, yet it is currently located at Meta:Requests for adminship, which doesn't even indicate that it's for other types of permissions as well until pretty far down the page. I propose moving this page to Meta:Requests for permissions, to improve clarity. --Yair rand (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the suggestion, not that it phases me either way. No evidence that it is a problem, as I haven't seen misplaced requests or questions about where to place requests.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion from 2011. Stryn (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The previous discussion brought up an important point regarding the old logs linking to Meta:Requests for permissions. Perhaps a different name would work? --Yair rand (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Ain't broke. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Mild oppose. If anything, add an indication that it is also used for other types of permissions higher up on the page. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What would happen to the subpages? Would they have to be moved? --Rschen7754 18:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It doesn't look like anyone's been relying on {{/ syntax, so things won't break if the old pages aren't moved. --Yair rand (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Labelling bot flag requests "Requests for adminship" is pretty close to broken, imo... --Yair rand (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Sensible change given the permissions assigned here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No problem exists. --MF-W 23:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Now that we have the patroller permission, if we moved this page to RFP, people would think that patroller is requested here. --Rschen7754 02:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)