Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Dmitrismirnov

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Dmitrismirnov. See current discussion or the archives index.

Dmitrismirnov[edit]

2008-08 admin[edit]

Dmitrismirnov (talkcontribs) - edit count
ruwikisource_p

User:Jayvdb suggested me to nominate myself for the adminship. I am also sysop on Russian Wikisource Участник:Dmitrismirnov and Wikilivres wikilivres:User:Dmitrismirnov. Thanks for your attention Dmitrismirnov 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - you seem to have a good knowledge of Wikisource, having spent many months here and having accrued over 2,500 edits. I think you would make a good administrator, so I support. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Long time user with many good contributions. Will be able to help WS more once he has the tools. FloNight 13:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 13:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, as you're trustworthy and hard working. When making admin actions, please use a summary (eg. when deleting a page), as that's somewhat more important than an edit summary (which you don't use often). —Giggy 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Consistent regular editor.--Poetlister 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Stratford490 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support RlevseTalk 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer it if you used edit summaries (there is a simple option in the preferences to force them), but you're obviously a good editor; no worries about you as an admin on this Wikisource in addition to the Russian one. EVula // talk // 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support generally. While I would like to welcome you here to make a bridge with Russian like myself as a bridge with Chinese, please enter edit summaries. This is even more important when using privileged functions for administrators. Thanks.--Jusjih 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I promise, I will... Dmitrismirnov 08:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoted--BirgitteSB 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2009-09 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since August 2008 by unanimous election (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Dmitrismirnov will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2010-10 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Confirmed
administrator since 2008-08 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Dmitrismirnov will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2011-11 confirmation[edit]

admin since Aug 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Dmitrismirnov will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Support, --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral - no admin action for over a year. I don't doubt that he will use the tools appropriately, but I question the need to have them if he's not using them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral though no concern, still active, and still has tools at ruWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2012-12 confirmation[edit]

admin since August 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Dmitrismirnov will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Only 3 admin actions (deletions) ever [1] and none since 2010 [2]; personally, I'm not a fan of de-sysopping for inactivity, especially where the user is still an active editor [3] and is actively sysopping elsewhere (logged admin actions yesterday on ru.ws where they are the second most active admin overall[4]), but our policy does provide for inactive sysops to be removed. However, the policy is inconsistent as it stateswe are inconsistent as in one place we state a standard for inactivity but also adopts meta's: under our stated standard ("not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year"), Dmitrismirnov passes, under meta's ("fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months"), they fail. At the same time our actual policy says An inactive user is one who has not edited during the past four months. Inactive users automatically lose their restricted access in their next scheduled confirmation vote unless at least half of the voting community supports continued access. Any user who has lost access due to inactivity may reapply through the regular processes. On that basis they pass (and on that basis the template above is incorrect) My position on this user is neutral pending further discussion.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support on grounds that no specific issue, though do hear Doug's thoughts, and there is some validity to that — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove -- Doug has enlightened me to the conflict(s) in our policy. The fact we first claim to adopt (& link) to Meta's criteria on this and then go on to state a different criteria than what Meta actually has is currently being discussed on the talk page. Nevertheless, only three total admin actions since 2008 on en.WS means, to me, the User no longer warrants an Admin bit here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • See my insertions and links above, my initial reference was to Wikisource:Adminship which said something completely different from Wikisource:Restricted access policy, only the latter is actually policy - so I've removed the conflicting language from WS:Adminship.--Doug.(talk contribs) 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Toemato/Tomatoe; both point to Meta and neither mirror what Meta states. Pls. refrain from making more of a mess here - make further comments to the discussion on the talk page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
        Coming back with a general statement. In years past we looked to introduce rollbacker status and this was not proceeded with at the community's decision to not strata permissions into a longer hierarchical system. It was seen then that if we trusted people then we should be looking to progress to administrator and the contained rollback +++ components (noting that adminship give access to numbers of rights). The argument proffered now seems to reflect a change in the position that someone who is active (at least as we defined active on one page) now loses access to tools for not using them. That is okay, but probably not appropriate to change the rules during a confirmation. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As a rule I don’t vote for admin auto confirms, but… This is an active user in good standing who has been granted Admin privileges and been in full compliance with the expectations of Wikisource. Jeepday (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Prolonged inactivity may be security risk, but occasional administrator's inactivity is tolerable when significant edits show some activity. Please use edit summaries much more often.--Jusjih (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

2014-01 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since August 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Dmitrismirnov will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.