Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2024

Suggest rename to "Requests for rights permissions" as a single overarching page for these requests

Hi. With what is being done here in 2024, and the request by WMF to expand to another set of rights to be managed by admins, I wish for the community consider whether we should be trying to manage all the rights applied for to be on the one page that it be this page. To allow for that, I would like for us to consider repurposing this page to be a more generic "Request for rights" rather than the "admin" name that we currently use.

The number of admin applications are not a high number and are here as subpages (ditto crats, CU, OS), if we can add these lower rights allocations as section, and not subpages, then they can be easily managed, and we can have bots manage the archiving.

Here we would manage, the newly request Events Organiser with the existing MassMessage, Patroller, ...

It would take a little architecture, though having just the one place to direct people adds easiness and enables simple attention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with either "request for rights" or "request for permissions". The archive page already uses the latter as part of the headers. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 --Johannnes89 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Fair point, and that aligns with SRP which makes sense. "Requests for permissions"  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the permission request will be so high traffic that it needs to be separated from the RFH. However, I prefer to have separate pages for requests that need the attention of many people (A, B, CU, OS, etc.) and those that basically only need the attention of the administrator (MassMessage, IPBE, Events Organizer, etc.). I think that handling request for high level permissions and low level permissions on the same page will flood the watchlist for those who are only interested in request for high level it. Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 07:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

so basically keep Meta:RfA as it is and create Meta:RfP for MassMessage, IPBE, event organizer and patroller permissions? I'm fine with that as well. Johannnes89 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that. Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 08:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Aren't all these rights at the moment not covered by this page, but by WM:RFH? --MF-W 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, MassMessage, IPBE, Events Organizer and patroller are handled at RFH now. Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 13:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

While discussing Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2024-01#Transitioning Event Organizer Rights Management to Meta-Admins we considered moving requests for event organizer permission to this page, that's how this proposal came up. But I agree that a separate page for all low level permissions currently handled via RFH appears to be the better option. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they should create a new, lower rights request page instead of repurposing it like many other wikis do. Chqaz (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather see all the RFH type permissions (basically all the permissions that are admin-discretionary) be it's own page - perhaps Meta:Requests for permissions? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Meaning that we have two pages for requesting rights? Not certain that we really have that need, nor that the bureaucrats get one to handle, and the admins get another. I was more thinking that the standard permissions are handled on the page, and the 'crat-assigned rights where a discussion is needed are on their own subpage, though still listed on the one page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)