Meta:Requests for adminship/Dschwen 4

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

Indefinite temporary adminship granted, although restricted only to WikiMiniAtlas and related pages. Will be confirmed in the normal way after one year. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dschwen[edit]

At least 100 valid contributions on another Wikimedia project: about 14000 across different projects (mainly commons, de, en)
>350 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 and Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen 3 I'd like to reapply for temporary (before you ask why I don't apply for perm admin, please read the previous three requests and the comments thereon) 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. When updates have to be made, they have to be made quick.

This part of the discussion was started prematurely, before I transcluded this request.

Sigh. I thought this was a permanent "temporary" position? What's the point in requesting this every six months or whatever? Just keep the tools indefinitely for use on the javascript part. Requesting here every six months for the exact same thing is pointless really. Majorly ^talk 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that your last request was a 6 month extension right..which means it expires in late December.. ?--Comet styles 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure I do, that's why I didn't transclude this subpage. I just had a couple of minutes to kill and prepared this one so that it doesn't hit me as cold as it did last time, when I lost admin rights for a couple of days. --Dschwen 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ahh, so you are hoping this page stays for another 3 months before its transcluded ;) ...--Comet styles 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uhm, yes. Does that make me look very naive? ;-) I wouldn't have guessed that some people are monitoring the creation of sub-pages here. Darn! There goes my plan. Instead of saving time I'm creating even more of a fuss now. Sorry! :-) --Dschwen 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I won't make a remark yet, but this request needs to be transcluded. This is a request for adminship, and it should be viewable at the page where requests for adminship are conducted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right, and it will be transcluded in 2.5 months. Please note that I have actually not made the request for adminship yet, as that would require transclusion. --Dschwen 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't see the point in requesting every six months for the exact same thing. Majorly ^talk 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How about I write a bot to make the requests every six months and provide a sign up page where people can put their name down to have the bot add their support/oppose votes automatically. The request would only have to be closed by an admin. ;-) --Dschwen 00:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue down here.

Just get permanent adminship and be done with. These requests are just going to go on forever aren't they if you don't. Majorly ^talk 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me:

Why the code is on Meta instead of, say, Commons (where Dschwen has permanent adminship) or the toolserver (where Dschwen has an account)?
Why we can't give him indefinite-but-restricted-to-this-task adminship so we don't keep wasting time?

— Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain I asked the second question at some point. These requests for the same thing, which could just be granted indef, are becoming rather tiresome, at least for me. Majorly ^talk 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The code used to be on individual projects in my userspace, which was a maintenance nightmare. It was moved to meta for consistency, as it is used in many projects now. If I remember correctly it was Gmaxwell's idea to move it here. And I agree with that decision. Commons seems to be an odd place for a cross-project javascript (toolserver would be one alternative if you didn't care about the maximum possible access to the code. if it were there then there wouldn't be any chance for anybody to help me). Anyhow, the whole she-bang including multilingual docs is on meta now. It would be a major hassle to relocate. And frankly I do not see the point. Why does there have to be such a monstrous fuss about this issue each and every time? Is this a trust issue? Do people think I'll go around and blow up meta? Do they think I'll proclaim myself the king of policies once I get the golden star of adminship? Maybe I haven't earned it, as I'm not active enough here. Geez, you wouldn't have to tell anyone that you made me admin. I'm not in it for the glory of it ;-). I just cannot get my mind around this! I just want the adminship to work on my (yes, my, don't come and wikislap me with WP:OWN and the likes, I wish it weren't solely mine, but so far no one else has volunteered to help me maintain it.) little project. I'm doing this for fun. I do not have any other motifs here. Why are you making me jump through the same hoop over and over again?

Uhm.. ..ok, sorry. Did that sound frustrated?! --Dschwen 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what point I'm trying to make at least is, I'll always support you for working on the code. But I don't want to have to keep supporting you every six months, or however long your adminship lasts. You should just get permanent adminship, that's restricted to the map, so you don't have to keep running back here for no real benefit. Majorly ^talk 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that were possible that would be great. All I need, all I want. It just seems to me that there are only tow categories of adminship here on meta: Full admin, or temporary admin that has to renew every N months. A task-specific adminship does not seem to be planned for. --Dschwen 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aphaia has such rights. Even if we didn't, we can always create it. We are flexible :-) I'd be happy for you to continue indefinitely as a task-specific admin. Majorly ^talk 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Wasn't Aphaia the one who opposed just that in Dschwen's requests for adminship, Volume II? --Dschwen 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think she may have misunderstood what was meant by permanent. Either way, I don't think it matters too much. Majorly ^talk 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with getting a permanent adminship is that you are not that active on Meta so there is a good chance that you will lose your adminship at your next confirmation and thus may be forced to apply for a new temp one, so it will be better if you try to fulfil the criteria of being an active admin if you do go for a permanent adminship..--Comet styles 20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't he have permanent adminship, but just for this task? Majorly ^talk 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that would be fine with me. Maybe you should direct that question at those who opposed before. --Dschwen 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give him indef adminship already. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support giving him adminship for this task (only) for as long as he needs it with the requirement that I don't want to see another one of these silly things from him :D — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - support permanent adminship, since all adminship on meta is valid for 1 year and after a year he will have to go through confirmations like every other admin so its fair and really, I can't wait for request number 5..NOT :P ...--Comet styles 08:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Limited adminship specifically does not go through confirmation, because it's a specialised task that does not necessarily require n edits over x months of activity. Majorly ^talk 13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]