Meta:Requests for adminship/Dschwen 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Dschwen

At least 100 valid contributions on another Wikimedia project: about 10000 across different projects (mainly commons, de, en)
>240 valid contributions on the Meta-Wiki: Check
Administrator of another project: commons:User:Dschwen
Meta userpage: User:Dschwen, with a matrix of links to other projects.
Valid contact address: Special:Emailuser/Dschwen, active and validated.
Have read (and understand) Meta admin policy: Yes.

I'd like to reapply for temporary adminship. This was granted before and (as you can see from my contribution list) was solely used for the purpose it was granted. I'm the creator of the WikiMiniAtlas, a drag- and zoomable map plugin for wikimedia projects. The WikiMiniAtlas is activated by default at least ten Wikipedias and on Commons. I need to frequently update the javascript part, requiring me, as the maintainer, to have admin privileges. Updates include new translations, feature requests and bug fixes. --Dschwen 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason against this request, and I'm in favour of giving again op to this user until he needs for the project, since he is a trusted user and fulfills meta RfA requirements... Since even elected sysops have to be "confirmed" yearly, I propose to meta.wiki community to give Dschwen a temp sysop status, limited in scope, but valid for some time between six months and one year. --M/ 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the continuation of temporary admin rights, I'd suggest a period of 6 months, with the same conditions as before that use of the right is restricted to maintaining the WikiMiniAtlas project. Since there is an additional condition over normal admins, this should be reviewed more often to ensure compliance, hence the suggestion of 6 months. Adambro 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support continued allowance of rights. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A. B. ^(talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very trustworthy...--Comet styles 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support --Thogo (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine with me - per M7 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mønobi 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I though you were an admin already! (I always think that...) --OosWesThoesBes 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss why we would not just give Dschwen permanent adminship if he wanted it!!!! So if he only wants temporary, fine. But I'd rather see him go for perm, frankly. One COULD say that repeatedly asking for non controversial temporary is a bit of a waste of time :) ... ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent would be fine with me. It's just that with permanent adminship there also come duties, and I'm not sure I'd be able to shoulder the workload of a regular full-blown admin here on meta. Then again maybe my perception is a bit off. I'd be happy to assist with any JavaScript related admin tasks on meta though. So if that kind of part participation would be useful then I might as well make this a request for permanent adminship. --Dschwen 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading of the above you would meet no resistance if you wanted to make it permanent. There are quite a few admins who know less about Meta and have contributed less than you have. I'd support it for what it is worth --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose granting permanent adminship on the basis that this user has not adequately demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of the Meta project to the level required. Therefore, if we were to grant permanent adminship then we'd have to continue impose the restriction that use of the rights are limited to maintaining WikiMiniAtlas. In this case it would be appropriate to review compliance more often than regular admins which makes regular adminship a bit of a non-starter. I still feel the rights should be limited in scope and come up for review every six months. Adambro 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - whatever you do decided to do I would be very grateful for some scripting to allow some automation of logging on the spam blacklist. It is a tedious & very necessary job. I'll guess the other admins active there would appreciate it. If it worked in the same way on en wp the gratitude would be substantial. It is equally necessary and it is not easy to get folk to do it. I'd request any temp admin rights would cover this area of Meta too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur re: blacklist. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 3-6 months, if this is not a precursor to requesting full adminship, then time should be used to either have this project be more supported by others (nothing should depend on one contributor) or make it self maintainable (perhaps the extraordinary act of transcluding or calling a userspace .js page (already protected from others) to achieve the results. xaosflux ^Talk 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original request for temp adminship whatsoever, personally I am puzzled why it requires this lengthy discussion - any b'crats are trusted the power to give temp adminship whomever they think sufficient enough or not, without the normal seven days discussion term without any controversy, moreover when many of meta editors express support to the request in question? --Aphaia 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I suppose the reason I didn't just make him a sysop when the request first turned up is that I was hoping he'd be convincable to go for permanent. But ya, arguably this is within the discretion of a crat to do. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However as for permanent promotion at this time (suggested in the course of this discussion), I feel I must say Oppose, not personally, due to integrity of my own, regarding the discussion on talk, in relation to two points in particular, that is, 1) proposal for raising the bar of nominees from the current 100 edits to somewhere higher and 2) requirement of general involvement, specially in case the candidate himself admits the lack of current involvement. However, in consideration of his past request for temp adminship and activities during that time, I personally feel at ease, specially in limitation of activity scope and decent time frame, and his offer to help Javascript related sphere is so tempting I'd nod to give full support. Perhaps we need to elaborate requirements, beyond a mere edit count, but now, "moral oppose" to give full access in a permanent scale. --Aphaia 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's drive that discussion forward then instead of holding this nom up. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, of course. So go for it. Aph.
- Well, of course I've not any problem to grant sysop bit, as requested and already stated. Frankly, since temp adminship duration is coded to a duration of one month I've preferred to open a discussion and seek the community opinion on this single case. It seems that we can at least override the standard duration in this case and grant a six month renewable temp sysophood, with usual limitations that the candidate agrees to abide to. I'd proceed in this way, but please feel free to comment, as usual! :) --M/ 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your clarification, now I understand. It is wise for you to invite the community and while I support your proposal about renewed temp adminship, it would be better to discuss on the talk, not here. --Aphaia 11:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've set the flag, as requested.: On the logs: Temp permission, as per request, granted with other people consensus, to be reviewed if necessary; Current bestowal of rights is

temporary
limited in scope, as per request
expires on 10 June, 2008

--M/ 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]