Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/George Orwell III

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 George Orwell III.
See current discussion or the archives index.

George Orwell III[edit]

2010-06 admin[edit]

George Orwell III (talkcontribs) • enWS activityGlobal

With the consent of User:George Orwell III, I propose this user for adminship.

With over 500 edits in the last 30 days, and over 10,000 in less than ten months of activity here, User:George Orwell III has become one of the most prolific contributors to Wikisource. The WS:USEO project owes much of its progress to this user’s diligence, and the user has made valuable contributions across many areas of the site (including proofreading scanned pages, programming templates, and participating in copyvio and deletion discussions). This user also has specialized knowledge of matters relating to United States law and legislation (see here and here for recent examples) of a sort that is rare and highly beneficial to a small, peer-driven project such as ours. This user’s contributions have been impressive both in qualitative and quantitative terms, and I have seen nothing to suggest that the user lacks an appreciation of the community’s standards and policies or that they would misuse the admin tools if granted such access. I support making this user an administrator. Tarmstro99 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support... thought he was one =) —Spangineerwp (háblame) 01:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support though would ask that when undoing contributions, that a little more information is provided to the reverted editor to better educate the contributor on the reasoning behind admin actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support All my experience of recent change patrolling screams YES.--Longfellow (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome contributor! I gave him my total support. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A great user, will make a great admin. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes please. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Appointed--BirgitteSB 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2011-07 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: confirmed
admin since June 2010 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). George Orwell III will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Keep and most definitely — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - without hesitation and in the warmest tones I can muster. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Has been a very good resource and helper through tough editing. - Tannertsf (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - vital admin and editor. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, no problems. Hesperian 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, no hesitation :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, indispensable admin. Tarmstro99 12:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • not impressed this was simply rude. (User:Jack Merridew, *gone* for good) 10:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Cygnis doesn't believe I'm Jack,diff so striking 15:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) could I comment on my nice css gift being dissed if I didn't mention 'Jack'?
Clarification of past practice Anyone has been welcome to comment at Wikisource internal discussions. We don't have a rule of striking opinions based on the identity or non-identity of the poster. The likelihood of bcrat's giving significant weight to an unlogged in comment in the net decision is very low. But we have generally encouraged people to list any concerns they have which they think should be considered by community members whose opinions will be given greater weight by the bcrat. Historically this was began to halt unhelpful arguments on whether "Foo" counts as enough of a community member to merit not striking their !vote in deletion discussions. But I happen to think it is a generally good practice solely on its own merits.--BirgitteSB 15:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Well pardon me - my inability to tell who or what someone is or really up to by an an anon IP address must have gotten the better of me. Sorry if it appeared rude - wish you would have logged in to begin with and all that might have been avoided. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
anons, former admins or not, may make {{editprotected}} requests. That template says to "disable this template (via {{tl}} or nowiki tags) when the request is handled." It doesn't advise simply removing it. You also removed the diff I gave where I added this feature in a Safari-specific form most of two years ago; it's been adding a nice touch for Safari (and Chrome) users ever since. Now, more browsers support transitions and I thought it would be nice to support them all; I added the editprotected tag after some days because no one seemed to have noticed the suggestion. The best course of action would have been to simply grant the request and enjoy the improved user experience. George, I didn't oppose you here; see the edit summary. My intent was a parting css gift; if I still had a bit here, I'd have simply made the change and prolly left a comment on the talk. I'm going to restore the 'gift' w/editprotected and ask that it simply be evaluated on technical merit. The "or be gone" comment is what irked me. 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Not what I said [1] or believe, I meant no disrespect. I was referring to an earlier comment I made, on a public page, to whoever "Jack" is. I also requested that he remove his comment, following the retraction of his "gift", if he wants to leave I want to facilitate a graceful departure. I strongly agree that anyone can comment, this is a poor example to champion that right. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I seem to have misunderstood a bit of what you were saying. I am trying to leave; it has nothing to to do with WS (and this is just a silly muddle); I'd be fine with it all being cut from George's archived discussion. I did try and shift it to his talk. 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I was unable follow the conversation being referenced due to the "per comment elsewheres", so I really don't know what you are referring to. I wrote the clarification because of the explicit note above that the comment is being struck because of the perceived identity or rather the uncertainty surrounding the identity of the poster not because of anything you wrote. I don't see commenting as a right to be championed. I see "I am being unfairly silenced!!" as a no-win dispute that is worth a great deal trouble to avoid being drawn into.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The "elsewhere" comments are here. Most doen't seem to realize that my departure was per en:wp's perennial toxicity (and I'll not delve into it here). I *am* User:Jack Merridew; many could attest to this; example. The account is su:locked, email-blanked, password scrambled. I have no active accounts; anons may edit these projects. 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
JM suggested that we may want to collapse or bury the conversation from just before his original comment. 'Crat decision IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather it remain true to the opinions expressed. If it goes toward other anon users venturing about on WS out there somehow getting convinced to register an account to avoid such instances of talking past each other, etc. - I say all the better. — George Orwell III (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll defer to George (but agree with billinghurst), but feel the need to point out that Open Editing (anons) is a WMF founding principle; 2. The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration. (a, I'm not convinced this is really viable, b, I'm restricted by the en:w:ac to edit from a single registered account WMF-wide until the heat death of the universe, and c, their authority does not extend beyond en:wp). May I offer some other insights? Anons are treated terribly on these wikis (and I don't mean this incident). You know why I think this is? Open Editing allows endless vandals, trolls, and other {supply a nice personal attack} people to run amok. Mostly this is an en:wp problem (but I'm smacked-down over there, so can't say it there (but they've not deleted it, yet). Anyhoo, the cycle of vandals/trolls/bad actors creates a shoot'em up mentality that's full of American kid-admins raised playing Doom; too many view the admin bit as a w:BFG 9000. By tollerating the vandals and trolls and simply going with a w:WP:RBI approach, *is* feeding the trolls. They love it. It makes the wikis into shoot'em-up games; anyone gets an 'undo' button (going a tad Godwin, a w:Luger, and the big fish are issued Schmeissers). How is this conducive to a collaborative environment? It's conducive to w:WP:BATTLEGROUND.
George do you understand my en:restriction? I'm not banned, I set my s:bit down voluntarily. I can return to en:editing anytime I want; all I have to do is submit to being a perpetual second class editor after having behaved myself for three years. That's unacceptable to me, and I see these projects as all of a piece, so I keep trying to say 'bye'. I conducted an en:defiance demonstration, last month; I create a dozen undeclared en:socks and made hundreds of useful edits with them. Their w:WP:SCRUTINY policy often begets w:WP:Harassment. But with undeclared accounts, editing was peaceful, and interesting, again. It wasn't viable, of course, so after a week or so, I fesse-up. en:wp range-blocked 38,000+ IPs in Indonesia to stop me (from improving references, mostly). I said I'd stop, and Indonesia can edit, again. I am hated by all en:wp's usual trolls and vandals. I'm critical of low-calibre editors and those who "set the bar" below ground level. I've been denied a w:WP:Clean start and have a thousands 'tells' and would be quickly recognized if I strayed too far from articles such as w:Gangtok. fyi, I'm not down on all the en:arbs; I've an email thread with JohnV and am about to send him my phone number). Sorry for the en:wp/rant; cut it if ya want. Keep the ws community smallish and avoid the perils of the toxic wiki. <joke>User:Open Revolt</joke> nb:sulutil:Open Revolt is empty as I post this, but one of the usual trolls will use it; Grawp *loves* fucking with me. 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. if anyone wants to talk privately about this with me, ask JohnV for my real email address; I'll trust his judgment about who he'll share it with. The 'Jack" ady many of you know is no more.
  • Support, ignore the above junk; wikis have ten times as much of it as true content; It's what the Alien Anthropologists2nd ¶ will be most interested in. George, I'm sorry for this mess; anon editing was all they left me and then they took that, so I was irked at being reverted as a mere anon. 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support John Vandenberg (chat) 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

2012-08 confirmation[edit]

admin since June 2010 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). George Orwell III will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Strongly supportBeeswaxcandle (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly supportWilliam Maury Morris II (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (He belongs wherever he wants to be.)
  • Stronger than strongly support, In the like manner of his kind help of others. — Ineuw talk 02:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly supportChris55 (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support too—--Zyephyrus (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support --Mpaa (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is a pretty easy call. EVula // talk // 23:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support =Pete (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • support 'teasy, keeper — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportGeorge Orwell III (talkcontribs) does very helpful work on this project with regard to standardization and formatting of Congressional Record documents. Much appreciated! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

2013-09 confirmation[edit]

admin since June 2010 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). George Orwell III will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2014-10 confirmation[edit]

admin since June 2010 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). George Orwell III will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
Symbol support vote.svg Support: Joking of course: who else would propagate in all the LUA and esoteric template updates, and the MediaWiki: namespace would feel significantly less loved without his constant care and feeding? AuFCL (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportClockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. Was there ever any doubt? — Ineuw talk 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, good stuff. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support indubitably — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jusjih (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Prosody (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)