Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/BD2412

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

BD2412[edit]

2015-09 admin[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Successful

BD2412 (talkcontribs) • enWS activityGlobal

I have become particularly active here over the past year, and I am confident that I would also be productive as an administrator. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Hmm. Both {{welcome}}-d and {{nominate}}-d yourself. Very…proactive… AuFCL (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGeorge Orwell III (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Green Giant (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support has the bit in many places, so no issue of trust. Do think about getting a bot account when whacking away with AWB bot-like edits, it does fill RC at times. Also to note that with Pathoschild's m:TemplateScript that many typo corrections can be built into the regex editor, or a sidebar script for when proofreading a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks - I am always keen for new tools to improve the editing process. I have a bot account on Wikipedia, and will file a request to use it for such purposes here. BD2412 T 13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakly Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the answer to my question. I am just unable to support having too few bureaucrats in a wiki.--Jusjih (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jusjih: - to be clear, you are opposing my becoming an administrator on Wikisource because you believe that there are too few bureaucrats on Wikiquote? BD2412 T 03:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jusjih: I find an opposition based on that criteria interesting. We have always been generous with adminship to competent people, especially in light of our thinking about not creating the rollbacker role. While you are entitled to your opinion, would you also oppose my continued adminship, and checkuser rights based on my having an opinion about the bureaucrat role? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — thank you for answering my questions. Trust was never in doubt, it was more about the need for the tools here. I'm more than happy to have another gnome to work alongside. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

  • Which of the admin tools are you feeling the lack of? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not so much that I feel the lack of the tools as my awareness that there are many tasks to be done, for which the tools will eventually be useful. There are different philosophies of what standards should be applied to an editor becoming an admin. One is whether the editor needs the tools; another is whether an editor can be trusted with the tools. I fall into the latter group, because I don't think we can predict how or when the tools will be needed, but I am certain that those who can be trusted with them should have them. BD2412 T 03:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In which areas of enWS do you see yourself making the most contributions as an admin? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • In each project where I have been an admin, I have found useful tasks to carry out with the tools, and I continue to carry out these tasks. I would certainly available for gnoming tasks like deleting redundant projects. I have closed literally thousands of discussions in other projects (deletion discussions, move discussions, policy discussions, conflict resolutions, etc.), and would like to involve myself in doing that here. BD2412 T 03:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Use of AWB looms so large in your Contributions list that it's difficult to see what your non-automated contributions are. Can you please give us an indication of your recent contributions in namespaces other than the Page: namespace? [One of the criteria for adminship here is involvement in multiple areas of the project.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is true that I use AWB extensively (and, I think, effectively) to correct common scanning errors or implement common formatting across thousands of pages. However, if all of my AWB contributions are taken out of the picture (about 62,000 edits), I have over 9,000 manual edits, which is by itself a respectable body of work. I have about 2,300 edits in article space, which also tend to be manual edits. I have recently been involved in POTM selection discussions, and as a (former) intellectual property attorney, I have from time to time weighed in on copyright discussions. I also note that, for example, when Htonl was most recently up for consideration here, I took the initiative to contact him on Wikipedia, where I know him to be active, resulting in his clarification of the situation here. BD2412 T 03:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello BD2412. You are a admin on enwp, en.wiktionary, and en.wikiquote. [1] As a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote you are completely inactive there after 31 January 2015. [2] As all other English Wikiquote bureaucrats are even less active, [3] I would consider keeping English Wikiquote bureaucrats redundant, while stewards could take over the work. My question here is similar to what I was asked an a candidate in 2015 steward election and I did resign as Commons bureaucrat with no regret. [4] With nothing personal, please explain how you expect to be active both here as a new administrator, subject to annual conformation, and as an English Wikiquote bureaucrat. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, I would have to disagree with your assessment - I believe I have been substantially more active than any other bureaucrat on Wikiquote, and much more recently than January. In July, for example, I closed an RFA application as unsuccessful, and in March I closed a group of de-adminiship proposals (of which this link is one example). These were generally unsuccessful efforts, so if bureaucratship is to be measured by actual use of the bureaucrat tools, then these discussions did not present that opportunity merely because of the way they turned out. In fact, when one of the de-adminship discussions resulted in removal of rights, I closed the discussion accordingly, but since bureaucrats have no power to remove rights, I filed the appropriate request with a steward to complete that process. These discussions still required that I assess consensus as a bureaucrat, and take appropriate bureaucrat action. As for my expectation of participation on both projects, just this week I crossed the one million edit threshold across Wikimedia projects. I have edited in 250 different projects, including several where I have garnered tens of thousands of edits and overseen fairly massive projects for the incorporation of content. I have been editing on Wikisource for years, but I feel that in the past year I have developed a much better sense of editing here, so I don't imagine that I will be dropping off in activity here - or anywhere else that I edit. BD2412 T 04:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Successful

2016-09 confirmation[edit]

Admin since September 2015 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BD2412 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AuFCL (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @AuFCL: Is there a reason for this? BD2412 T 13:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep admin actions reasonable — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepIneuw talk 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. AuFCL opposing with no reason looks mysterious to me.--Jusjih (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

2017-10 confirmation[edit]

Admin since September 2015 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BD2412 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
The following discussion is closed: Confirmed. Mpaa (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
* Symbol support vote.svg Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2018-11 confirmation[edit]

Admin since September 2015 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BD2412 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.