Requests for comment/Global translation administrators

The following discussion is closed: I close this discussion as proposed by myself on 9 July, unopposed. It doesn't look like this idea has a lot of support, but if anyone wants to propose it again, please make sure it is properly made (thought-out proposal, notification of affected communities). --MF-W 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment period is over.

Proposal

The idea would be to make global translation administrators on every WMF wikis with the translation extention on it. It would make the translation system faster, more efficient and flexible without sacrificing safety. After 6 month of inactivity, they would lost their rights.

First way

A local translation admin with experience could ask two local administrators^[1] (maybe from different wikis, like one from Commons and the other from Wikidata) to support him on a global special page. If the user gets two admin's approbations, he automatically becomes global translation administrator. (A single administrator^[1] could revoke these grants in case of abuse)

Support The most flexible way, but still secured CreativeC38 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a very good move. Lotje (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks too much complicate for me. --Framawiki (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support look's fair enough. Pamputt (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support : It's a good thing. --Archimëa (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This does not allow for the opinions of the community. --Rs chen 7754 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be helpful. Chrumps (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second way

A local translation admin with experience could ask an administrator to support him, to let him request global translation admins right to the Stewards on Meta:Requests for adminship (non supported users couldn't request these rights).

Oppose It would save time to the Stewards comparing to the third one but it's too rigid CreativeC38 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third way

A local translation admin with experience could ask Stewards these rights.

Oppose The most traditional way, the least efficient. CreativeC38 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the same process for global admins and rolbackers. Simple, effective --Framawiki (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to be consistent with others cases. Pamputt (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I don't see the point. If there are local wikis which want to deny certain users easy access to translation administrator tools then that is their business. If wikis are okay with promoting experienced editors easily (like e.g. Wikidata) then there is no problem to be solved by this proposal. --Vogone (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's really worth having "global translation administrators". Only multilingual wikis (7 wikis), French Wiktionary and some Wikimedia chapters wikis have the translation extension. I find it more efficient that the user requests it locally in each of the wikis where they will need it. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 09:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because makes no sense to use the translation admin right in all wikis. For example, every Wikipedia has its own language, and if you don't understand the local language you can speak in a common language (e.g. english) to be able to communicate well with other users. And also translation admin rights, IMO, is better in multilingual projects and not in projects with one language spoken. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 21:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural oppose - this proposal needs to be more carefully thought out. --Rs chen 7754 00:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think a few questions need to be asked: first of all, what wikis would this include? Maybe we wouldn't write it in as part of the policy, but it would be helpful to have a list. Also, the third option needs to be fleshed out. Is it just a simple ask, or is it a 2-week community discussion? --Rs chen 7754 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there needs to be a provision for removal in terms of tool misuse, or inactivity. --Rs chen 7754 18:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's close this discussion immediately. The proposal is badly made (imprecise or missing policy provisions) and the affected wikis were not notified. --MF-W 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would be okay with that. --Rs chen 7754 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Good questions.The list of wikis are Wikispecies, Wikidata, Commons, Incubator, Outreach, Meta-Wiki and Mediawiki. For removal, let's say let's say a limit of 6 month of inactivity and misuses depends on the seriousness of the mistakes. CreativeC38 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ ^a ^b By administrators I'm talking about administrators on wikis with the translate extension installed on it (Wikispecies, Wikidata, Commons, Incubator, Outreach, Meta-Wiki and Mediawik). For example, admins of Italian or Finnish Wikipedias wouldn't promote global translation admins

[admins-1] By administrators I'm talking about administrators on wikis with the translate extension installed on it (Wikispecies, Wikidata, Commons, Incubator, Outreach, Meta-Wiki and Mediawik). For example, admins of Italian or Finnish Wikipedias wouldn't promote global translation admins

[1]