Meta:Requests for adminship/Dschwen 5
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
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 and Bureaucrat 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.
Per Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen and Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen 2 and Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen 3 and Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Dschwen 4 I'd like to reapply for a limited adminship solely used for the purpose of editing Mediawiki:Wikiminiatlas.js, the centrally hosted clientside part of the WikiMiniAtlas. 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 be able to 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.
I would like to note that I have had a limited adminship for this exact purpose for about seven years, and have lost it on April 8th because I missed the inactivity procedure due to extraordinary real life business (moving). I would also like to point pout that despite having made less than the required 10 edits on the clientside script, I am anything but inactive. In the last 6 months I spent most of my WMA time on porting the WikiMiniAtlas over to Wikimedia Labs due to the impending shutdown of the toolserver. It has only been for a few days that Labs does offer me everything that I need to operate the WMA. I am fully set up on Labs now, and losing the sysop bit could not have come at a worse time. I need it more than ever right now to start limited testing of the Labs instance to make sure it holds up to the traffic, and to have ample time to fix potential issues before the Toolserver goes down once and for all.
Per Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Other_access I would like to have my sysop bit reinstated as soon as possible (while this RfA plays out), and I would like the temporary adminship to be replaced by a limited adminship should this RfA be successful. Thank you in advance. --Dschwen (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I don't see why it was removed. However, would it be possible to host the code in your own personal js file? That way, admins could still edit it, but you could as well (but nobody else). It seems a bit strange to grant the entire sysop toolkit to maintain one page. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta:Administrators#Inactivity: "Any sysop inactive on Meta will be desysopped." --MF-W 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed to be explicitly granted to avoid that rule, and common sense would suggest that he is still as active as he needs to be to maintain the wikiatlas script, which is his scope. Oh well. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It might seem illogical here, but since temp. adminship can also be for "sometimes an indefinite period", I'd say that it is only appropriate to check these sysops in the activity runs. --MF-W 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but making a few hours break 7 years of adminship is the illogical part. I think I have made it clear that I am still active and do still need the sysop bit. --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a problem of the definitions of the inactivity policy then. --MF-W 23:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but making a few hours break 7 years of adminship is the illogical part. I think I have made it clear that I am still active and do still need the sysop bit. --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It might seem illogical here, but since temp. adminship can also be for "sometimes an indefinite period", I'd say that it is only appropriate to check these sysops in the activity runs. --MF-W 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed to be explicitly granted to avoid that rule, and common sense would suggest that he is still as active as he needs to be to maintain the wikiatlas script, which is his scope. Oh well. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta:Administrators#Inactivity: "Any sysop inactive on Meta will be desysopped." --MF-W 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- support —DerHexer (Talk) 15:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. In the meantime I gave you temporary adminship under this rule "[...] you may request temporary adminship on meta. In this case, adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, [...] Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month." (WM:RFA). --MF-W 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. 7 years seems to be a reasonable time span. Vogone talk 15:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, per above. Thank you for your work on WMA. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This seems a better solution than odd temporary use of the tools. As this would require Dschwen to use the tools at least 10 times every six months, they may end up doing a wider variety of helpful things here too. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that he does not request "normal" adminship since he specifically added a section for "limited adminship" on the RFA page. --MF-W 23:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, this seems a missed opportunity. --Fæ (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that he does not request "normal" adminship since he specifically added a section for "limited adminship" on the RFA page. --MF-W 23:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trusted --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --KTo288 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Courcelles 18:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sure. --Goldenburg111 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's weird why it's not permanent :/ oh well the inactivity policy...--AldNonUcallin?☎ 18:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my comment above seems to have been missed, so I'll repeat it again here - why not host the wikiatlas code in Dschwen's personal js file? Mediawiki:Wikiminiatlas.js could then be replaced with an importscript command which takes the code from User:Dschwen/Wikiminiatlas.js. This would mean:
- There would be no disruption in usage since anything drawing from Mediawiki:Wikiminiatlas.js would still work.
- Dschwen would not need to worry about the local sysop package at all, especially inactivity procedures which will most likely be repeated in the future.
- We wouldn't need to grant the full sysop kit to someone who wants to maintain one js page.
- IMO this is the best solution, and will result in no future conflict over this. If ever Dschwen goes inactive, the code can be transferred back to Mediawiki:Wikiminiatlas.js. Admins can also edit the code in his personal JS file so that isn't a problem. Thoughts? Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea to me.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- the import command would add yet another http request, which at the current level of use would make it a bad idea. The decision was made NOT to host the script in user space (were it was before it got moved to meta) as the script is very high profile. I don't see why we should change this back. It worked pretty well for the past seven years. --Dschwen (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The request succeeds.