Meta talk:Interface administrators/Archives/2020

Question

Would it be better to change the following:

1. [[Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_adminship|Meta:Requests for adminship]] to
   1. [[Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_adminship|Meta:Requests for adminship]] or
   2. [[Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_interface_adminship|Meta:Requests for adminship]]
2. [[Meta:Administrators|Administrators]] to [[Meta:Administrators|Administrators]]
3. [[Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_requesting_adminship]] to [[Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_requesting_adminship]]
4. [[Special:listusers/interface-admin|interface administrators]] to [[Special:listusers/interface-admin|interface administrators]]

-- Minorax (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to amend: Use RFH for admins and RFA for non-admins

Hello. Currently regular administrators may be given the interface-admin permissions upon request. In all cases I remember this was an automatic formalism. As such I don't see much point in requiring our admins to create a [[Meta:Requests for interface adminship/$admin_name]] only to be closed minutes afterwards. For those cases I think administrators should be using WM:RFH instead in order to reduce the unnecesary red tape. There's also no reduction on transparency as RfH is widely watched and in any case a diff or permalink will be used in the user rights log by the granting bureaucrat. RfH is also monthly archived.

For non-administrators, given that it requires discussion, I'd indeed keep the WM:RFA process as it requires one week of discussion which would benefit from its own place.

I am therefore proposing that the "Requesting interface adminship" heading be amended as follows:

== Requesting interface adminship ==
The process for requesting interface adminship on Meta-Wiki is different for administrators and non-administrators:

• Administrators may be given the right upon request at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.
• Non-administrators shall file a request for interface adminship. The process is the same as for a normal request for adminship. (Cf. Meta:Administrators#Policy for requesting adminship)

(subject to style/grammar/ortographic corrections)

Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Perhaps for archives we can still put the permalink of the RFH request on the RFA archives? Or else makes perfect sense as the additional page indeed serve little to no purpose and are speedy closed per policy. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am happy to file an entry at Meta:Requests for adminship/Archives with a permalink if wanted as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• +1, and agree with CM as well. —Sgd. Hasley 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Very good; let's also continue to mention the requests on WM:RFA/Archives as proposed. --MF-W 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Minorax (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support as above. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose it doesn't really matter, our IAdmin policy is rather sparse - for meta admins: access is not required to be granted, community consensus is not required either - it simply "may" be given - so it really is just at the discretion of any passing bureaucrat, who should at the least be asking if 2FA is enabled if it wasn't already stated as such. In any case, the policy requires involuntarily defroked iadminss to actually run an RFA - and this shouldn't be changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Strong support The current process for admins requesting IA is purely bureaucratic; let's remove this red tape. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I also support adding a note on Meta:Admin that they must confirm that 2FA has been enabled before being granted IA. ~riley (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. Keep things simple and only have as much process as it helps the community function. Deryck C. 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support · Good proposal. -- CptViraj () 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiven2240 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Base (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. Unnecessary bureaucracy, --Esteban16 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

---

I have updated the page according to the unanimous support here. --MF-W 13:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)