Meta talk:Administrators/Archives/2016

Rename section

WRT. Meta:Administrators#Temporary_adminship_or_adminship_by_decree. I'd like to propose that temporary administrators be called limited administrators. The increasing number of temporary administrators with no expiring date makes the "temporary" word loose its meaning. Meta:Administrators#Temporary_sysop_status should be modified to Limited administrator status:

=== Limited administrator status ===
Administrator status can be granted in a limited way. Limits can be set in time and/or in scope (for example, an user can be granted limited administrator status to perform technical work for an indefinite period of time, or to assist in a specific task for a set period of time, etc.). Unless requested and granted otherwise, limited adminiship will have a duration of 30 days, after which rights will be removed. Limited administrators will procure not to use their administrator tools for tasks they have not been authorized, and doing so will be grounds for immediate removal.

Comments, opinions, other wordings, etc. also welcome. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 12:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

+1. Matiia (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Also, this fixes the Temp Admin/Translation Admin confusion over TA :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Very good. Maybe the words "procure" and "to" can be omitted from the last sentence to simply it. We should at the same time change the section about temporary adminship on Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Other_access, which is also very outdated: If you need temporary sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages) or a specific time only, you may request temporary limited adminship on meta. In this case, adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of what they asked for. Temporary Limited sysop access will normally be valid for one month, unless stated otherwise. (suggested changes are stricken and in Italics). Quite funny how it currently claims every request can be approved without discussion if only it is temporary! --MF-W 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds reasonable. Though perhaps there should probably still be some inactivity amendment similar to what we have in the GR policy to prevent that after some years too many vanished users stick here as "unremovable" limited admins. --Vogone (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that they are included in the normal activity review, but that they get listed for signature even if they have less than 10 edits. --MF-W 12:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Better late than never (proposed on February and got comments in October) but this is now done with a few tweaks from MF-W. If people agree, we can also add that those users granted indefinite limited adminship will be required to sign on each April or October (the one more close to their yearly term) its intention to renew the permissions. —MarcoAurelio 14:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

While we are at it, a bureaucrat should add Dschwen (RfA) to the list of indef. limited adminships. --Vogone (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Done! Maybe we should be asking Dschwen if adminiship is still required given that it seems the source code of WMA is now on GitHub? —MarcoAurelio 15:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)