Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/ResidentScholar

From Wikisource

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by ResidentScholar. See current discussion or the archives index.

[edit] ResidentScholar

[edit] 2008-01 admin

216.165.199.50 (talk • contribs)

64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs)^[1]

ResidentScholar (talk • contribs)^[2]

Ok, I know this is a bit odd, and that there are a few minor technical difficulties to overcome before this is possible, but damnit, this person (whoever it is) is a keeper, and cares about the quality of our project.

On the content side of things, User216 has consistently progressed on a very large work History of the United States 1801-09, and has worked on many others such as An Essay Towards a Theory of Art, The Poetical Works of William Cowper, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Electra, Philoctetes and others.

What is more impressive is that User216 has 217 edits to the Wikisource namespace, of a total of 1500+ edits. These mostly consist of identification and discussion of copyright violations and deletion proposals. While not all of them have been successful, many have been found to be undesirable, and User216 is quick to acknowledge when there is a suitable reason to keep. In addition User216 takes the time to notify the user when that is appropriate.[3] I think it is safe to trust User216 to close WS:COPYVIO and WS:PD based on consensus within the legal limitations.

Another example of User216's Wikisource namespace contribs is the expansion of Wikisource:Ancient Rome. John Vandenberg 14:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

John has my thanks for the hospitality expressed in his nomination of me as administrator of the project. I accept the nomination with the understanding that my role would be limited, at least for now, to increased responsibilities in what I have been assisting in doing in the past, namely to closing the WS:COPYVIO discussions in which I have before participated in and moving them to Wikilivres if necessary. (and WS:PD discussions also if that would be helpful). In recent days in the course of rechecking the labeling of the license status of the modern era authors (I'm up to the Gs), I have discovered possible copyvios at a rate of about one work for every two letters of the alphabet, if that can give any indication of the future volume of such discussions. Another role I see users and admins doing is patrolling edits. I would be willing to learn about that as well, but as far as shaping policy and that sort of thing, I have personal limitations that would prevent regular attendance on long-term projects, and you would have to depend on good fortune for my ability to help in those areas. If that changes, we can discuss increasing my role.

Relating to shaping policy, and so there's no surprises, I do have a minor policy suggestion about the main index that I haven't broached because of the smallness of the role I've occupied before, but that's the only "agenda" item I want to pursue as an Administrator. If in the future I see how a change could significantly improve things, and have the ability to follow through, I will bring it up in the appropriate venues as I did at Wikisource:Reform month and on some of the Administrators' user pages, with deference to my more senior Adminstrators. I am also willing to share my ideas for Wikisource, even if I can't personally follow through on them, where appropriate.

Thanks again, John, for the honor of the nomination.

ResScholar 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That sig might not be set up quite right... ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it, Lar, I don't have an autosig set up yet. ResScholar 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's technically impossible to assign groups to an IP address, and that is very unlikely to change in the future. That is neatly circumvented if they register an account, perhaps something like User:216. They also need to accept the nomination for adminship, of course. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:30:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Wow, humble and hard-working. What's not to like? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support If we're sure these are all the same person, he's earned it.--Poetlister 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks from comments below that it's all OK.--Poetlister 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Great to see an account created. Giggy\^talk 09:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on account that Resident Scholar has no e-mail.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  ResScholar has said that an email address will be sorted out shortly (see User talk:ResidentScholar#Email and user page). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. E-mail seems to be working and the new account already has over fifty edits. Nice.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support--BirgitteSB 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Has anyone run a CU to evaluate the probability that the bulk of the contributions of the anons referenced are from the newly created user, ResidentScholar? I confess that, absent that (which remember is not infallible, but can give some assurance of a high probability of correlation) I'm not comfortable with making a pretty newly created under 100 edit user an admin here. Also, I'm not comfortable with "my role would be limited" promises... We should evaluate if this user is trustworthy enough to be an admin, regardless of what they say they want to focus on now... interests change and grow. This is a comment because I am neither opposing or supporting, only asking questions. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A CU analysis hasn't been conducted as far as I know - it should be done, but there is little reason for doubt. I certainly didnt mean to impose a limited role on ResidentScholar's adminship; it is however an area that the user has specialised in, demonstrating involvement in the community and a keen interest in policing our copyright policy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think a CU is warranted without good reason to suspect abuse. What about 216.165.199.50 or 64.154.26.251 stating on ResidentScholar's talk page that they are the same person?--GrafZahl (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The reason a CU is warranted is that RS wants the benefit of the edits the IP did in evaluating the adminship request. That's a voluntary thing (although I guess I should have been more explicit, that it should only be done with permission of RS, which I forgot to do). I see it's been carried out, and even without 64... the number of edits we now can reliably attribute to RS is quite an impressive number, especially the ones focused on the project... Far more than I had when I stood for adminship, to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've done a CheckUser check, after a request by Yann on IRC. The 216... IP and the user ResidentScholar are a match, so I'd say they are definitely the same user. 64... IP doesn't have any fresh edits, so CheckUser check shows nothing. --Filip (§) 09:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Yann 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per the above analysis. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Glad to have you editing with us with your new account. FloNight 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive work, and knows more about licence templates than I do. :-) Cowardly Lion 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Appointed—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-03 confirmation

• Support -- billinghurst (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unanimously kept. Jude (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)