Meta:Requests for adminship/Dschwen 3

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

Granted a 6 month extension--Comet styles 04:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• 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.

It's that time of the year again. Per Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen and Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen 2 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. Ok, the frequently part wasn't really true for last year (mainly due to the transition into a new job), but when updates have to be made, they have to be made quick. --Dschwen 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Explain to me why we shouldn't just force you to have a permanent adminship and save a lot of bother?... Support either ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I forgot a smiley here. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Yes, I agree. You should be a permanent admin. I support either, too. Monobi (talk ) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support for another 3 months, but Oppose Strongly oppose a permanent one due to your inactivity and lack of contribution in the last 3 months, you only need adminship for editing this MediaWiki page and thats about all you do on Meta in terms of being an editor...--Comet styles 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  • eh? I think Dschwen has shown via the history of temp adminships that he's not likely to blow up the wiki. The low edit count does not concern me. Meta adminship may be a bit bigger deal than other places because of the pages that have global effect but I very much trust this user, despite any lowish edit counts. I'd ask you to reconsider. (of course, this user hasn't given in to our urgings to go for permanent-ness yet)... ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Ok, I give in. Anything to get the job done. Seriously it's the same to me. Perpetual reapplying for temp admin is just a little bit more hassle. --Dschwen 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Well actually one major requirement for RfA's on this wiki is "activity" and for people requesting permanent sysops on this wiki, that is really important, but seeing that you have only over 30 edits this year, thats shows your inactivity level, and I would agree if your temps sysops this time was increased to 6 months, and after 3 months/6 months (whichever you choose) if you become really active in those periods, I'll happily support your for permanent adminship, and like I say in most other RfA's trust is not the issue, and trust alone can never get anyone adminship on any wikis, unless they meet all requirements :)...--Comet styles 02:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• I agree with others; Support Support temporary and permanent admin (as I trust him to not go nuts outside of the relevant page). giggy _(:O) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support permanent temporary adminship - permanent, but only permitted to make edits to the Mini Atlas MediaWiki page (and anything related to that). Majorly ^talk 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support for temporary or permanent adminship. Trustworthy user who has shown he knows what he's doing. Not fussed by the activity issues in the circumstances. WjBscribe 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support per Lar.--Cato 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support I don't see any issues with abuse of sysop tools. --Kanonkas 18:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• support for temp sysopship. --Thogo (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support temporary and permanent adminship, provided that this user will keep himself updated with current events on Meta (i.e. changes in policy, admin-relevant discussions, etc.) Nishkid64 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support. _~ Innv ^s: 03:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support Permanent or temporary; as Dschwen prefers. -- Avi 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support for temporary --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support for temporary. Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Is that only for temporary, and does this imply an oppose to perm? I just want to get my job done, and I find it a bit odd that essentially clinging to policy just adds additional hassle for me without any apparent benefit for meta. What would be the big deal if I got permanent adminship? --Dschwen 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Temporary does not mean "not permanent". In your case, it would be of indefinite length, but, as I suggested limiting to what you're asking it for. If you ever wanted to expand, you can always ask. Majorly ^talk 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support indefinite "temporary" adminship (ie. limited to WikiAtlas). Daniel (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Expires: 21st December 2008..--Comet styles 04:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]