Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2023

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

I need to add my request to this page. Meta:Requests for limited adminship/27bchao1.

27bchao1 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@27bchao1: realistically, you have no chance at passing a RfA here based on your global contributions and your candidate statement rationale. Why do you think you need this? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I just need it because I want to edit but I can not since I am a limited user. 27bchao1 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is why I am requesting limited and not full andminship because I need the lowest possible adminship. 27bchao1 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Over 99% of pages are editable by anyone, even without an account. What specifically can you not edit? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I can not edit semi-protected pages since I am new. 27bchao1 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah OK. @27bchao1: what you need is not "limited administrator" it is autoconfirmed user access. This will be automatically added to your account after 4 days. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

How do I get it sooner? 27bchao1 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done and based on w:en:Special:PermaLink/1176115113 you have no idea how these projects work right now. There are many many many ways to help contribute to the project that do not require being an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Might be a coincidence but the user name is very similar to Special:CentralAuth/27bchao... Johannnes89 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What does that mean? 27bchao1 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

Need by request for translation admin in there.

27bchao1 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done; stop making frivolous requests or you will be blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What I really want the admin. 27bchao1 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User already blocked indef, no need for such. Toadette (chat) 04:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Change RfB?

I'm not a fan of the current RfB process - it puts a pocket veto in the hands of the existing bureaucrats, yet also laughs at Meta:Snowball by allowing closure in only 24 hours with only 2 participants. I'm thinking we should have an RfC to update Meta:Bureaucrats - replacing requirements 2 and 3 with the same sort of requirement we have for admins (a one week discussion). Any good reasons this would be dead on arrival? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this subject up. While reading the process and setting up for my own request I was quite surprised, since it sounded me a little bit different from the elections in use in other projects and from the one in use sometime ago. I agree with both of your points, not being interested in vetoing anybody else RfB election, but of course interested in hearing as many opinions as possible from other users. --M/ (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the original plan was along the lines of we should just let any admin that wants to be a crat be one, so we only need a tiny check to make sure they are active. So not quite, but almost as permissive as eswiki where there are 58 crats! As crats are a check on int-admins, which on meta can have certain global impacts, I'd rather it just be a routine discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait for some other opinions, then I think you can set up a request for comments with activity requirements, possibly easily verifiable using a tool such as adminstats. --M/ (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I would trust any metawiki admin to handle bureaucrat permissions well, but I agree that the RfB process should probably be updated. The community was much different in 2008 when the requirements were introduced, a one week discussion instead of requirements 2 & 3 feels better to me. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with changing the criteria. The current process is quite unusual. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with having RFB set a week for discussion, the same as RFA. Bureaucrat also handle the CN administrator flag, which is not given to the administrator by abbreviating the procedure (like an interface administrator). Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 14:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to change it to a regular week-long community discussion. The system of bureaucrat endorses seems to have been done to make access to the role more available, but now it almost feels more restrictive, especially with the limited number of active bureaucrats. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• +1 for changing the process to match RfA -Fastily 02:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)