Meta:Requests for adminship/Multichill (temp)

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

Multichill

Multichill (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hey, most people probably know Multichill from his work on Wikimedia Commons and the Dutch Wikipedia. He is heavily involved with all kind of Cultural Heritage cooperations, Wiki Loves Monuments and mass upload projects. He has been an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia since November 2007 and on Wikimedia Commons since May 2008. Multichill runs multiple crosswiki bots, including CommonsDelinker.

He will likely be involved in some centralnotice stuff later this year to announce Wiki Loves Monuments, so it would be helpful for him to have admin status by then. I think Multichill is a highly trusted user and common with having extra user rights. I would like to nominate Multichill for admin status on Metawiki because he would be a valuable addition to the team. Effeietsanders 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept :-) Multichill 16:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I certainly know Multichill from Commons where good work is done. However the contributions here are so minimal I cannot support this. 100 contribs goes back over two years. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In passing - temporary admin would seem perfectly appropriate to the needs. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - given the change in the request I certainly have no objections. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Of course Multichill can be trusted with the mop, but he doesn't need it atm. Perhaps a temporary adminship during the Wiki Loves Monuments project? Trijnstel 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine with me too. That would be from start of August (prep time) to the start of October (finish up). Multichill 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sure the tools would be useful for the work Multichill is doing and certainly trust him. Aude 01:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm with Aude on this one. Courcelles 07:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Herby, but would support temporary per Trijnstel. --WizardOfOz ^talk 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change this to a temporary admin request. The period would be from 30 July (when this is supposed to be finished) to 15 October (to give 2 weeks space for evaluation). I will limit my activity to the global notice. Multichill 09:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the temporary adminship. Sa vh ^ñ 09:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support temporary adminship. Guido den Broeder 09:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matanya 11:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with more activity hopefully , permanent one Mardetanha ^talk 11:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support temporary adminship, per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support micki t 16:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the temporary adminship. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 16:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. According to Trijnstel and Mardetanha.” T_ele^s (T_alk _{@ C S}) 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman 22:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Meno25 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
for temp sysopship, Support. (Permanent not at this point due to a lack of Meta activity.) --თოგო ^(D) 09:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dolledre 22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Doing a great job and not offending people.[reply]
Support for temporary. I don't see the need for permanent access at this moment. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 03:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --N KOzi^Talk 04:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the community is in favour of granting Multichill temporary sysop access. Per policy («adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of their local project») and this other description («[r]equests for temporary adminship and bot requests may be less formal and often go for a shorter duration if consensus becomes clear after only a few days of discussion.»). Promoted, set to expire on 26 August, 2011 (policy says one month is the standard). -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 08:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to 15/10/2011 [1] -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]