Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Hesperian

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 Hesperian.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Hesperian[edit]

2008-01 admin[edit]

Hesperian (talkcontribs)

Since registering in early July, 2005 Hesperian has been diligently contributing texts about Australia and botany. In addition to that, he is an admin on Wikipedia, with 30,000 edits on similar topics.

The only "problem" here was the first work, My Life's Adventure by Author:John Kirwan, contributed June 5, 2005; it was raised at WS:COPY on November 19, 2006, Hesperian chimed in within 24hrs, explained why he had presumed it to be PD, and acknowledged that it should be deleted.

In addition to 1300 contributions here and ~100 to the Latin Wikisource, he has also taken up the task of patrolling the RC feed since it was recently available to non-admins. John Vandenberg 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John; I accept. Hesperian 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. John Vandenberg 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. After carefully reviewing this users contributions, here and on w:en, I believe Hesperian to be careful, thorough, and civil. Quadell 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Long time contributor with many quality edits. RC patrolling shows interest in helping with admin type tasks. Joins in discussions about Community issues. Will be a good addition to the admin team. FloNight 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support One early mistake is scarcely fatal!--Poetlister 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Eclecticology 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Cowardly Lion 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Dovi 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Moondyne 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Appointed--BirgitteSB 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2009-02 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Confirmed

2010-03 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Keep because we always need one — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not sure that we can find another Hesperian, so let us keep this one :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly. Jude (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Phe (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stuff, -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to Wikistats, he has more namespace edits than anyone. ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Gosh, really? Hesperian 09:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed: confirmedbillinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2011-04 confirmation[edit]

Admin since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

2011-09 bureaucrat[edit]

Hesperian (talkcontribs) • enWS activityGlobal

Wikisource currently has two bureaucrats [1] and my reflecting on existing needs indicates to me that we could do with a third, and to that point I would like to nominate Hesperian for that role (role explanation at m:bureaucrat). To my view, our bureaucrats are in space where they are judging and acting on the will of the community, so generally they are among our more senior editors and administrators, though probably moved out of the more activist mode and into the contemplative mode. I believe that Hesperian fulfils both of those criteria, and has exhibited required abilities to undertake this role on behalf of the community. He first edited both Wikipedia and Wikisource back in the mediæval period, has achieved sysop mop level at a few sites and has approximately 200k edits across the Wikimedia properties. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, billinghurst; I accept.

I share billinghurst's view that the role is to humbly enact the community's will, and is therefore best suited to someone who has stepped back from actively driving agendas and moulding opinion. I seem to have drifted that way over the last year or so, so I am happy to serve as bureaucrat if you guy's'll have me. Hesperian 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Seems like a great suggestion, lots of things to consider here, first impression is support. Wanted to post something positive while I think about it and before I make my formal recommendation. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Support, as I look back through old discussions, I am reminded of all the level headed comments and actions Hesperian has made. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support entirely.--Zyephyrus (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to nom Hesperian myself. I think we need several more crats and could stand to have many more. Of all the experienced participants, Hesperian goes to the top of the list for experience, trustworthiness, and judgment.--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Holy crap 200k edits! I also support the idea we get him another keyboard. I am guessing he wore out his original one he used for editing the Wikimedia projects! :) With the number edits and years of experience, I give him my full backing. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - most important to me, civility, and Hesperian has it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. As we have so many administrators, having the third bureaucrat will much better justify why we always need our own bureaucrats. Some wikis with just two bureaucrats have both of them inactive. [2]--Jusjih (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Concur with billinghurst on the nature of this role, and Hesperian's suitability for this role. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Only 2 bureaucrats?!?! C'mon, wikisource has 41 admins! Surely more than just 3 bureaucrats would be better so there won't be any backlogs to crat-related matters (i.e. renames, promotions, bots, etc). —stay (sic)! 12:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree, stay, I was originally intending to nominate at least two people but got preempted by Billinghurst on this one.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hesperian has been promoted to bureaucrat.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2012-05 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2013-06 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: confirmed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Support--Mpaa (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support MODCHK (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support —Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Support--Jusjih (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportGeorge Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support —Maury (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
SupportResScholar (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

2014-07 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: confirmed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 01:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Maury (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAuFCL (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    In your current capacity as bureaucrat you have to be answerable to a higher standard. I am perfectly happy to support you in your capacity as potential continuing sysop. AuFCL (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportbillinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Though active as bureaucrat, higher standard is desirable.--Jusjih (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportResScholar (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ineuw (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC) unintentional double vote Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGeorge Orwell III (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportClockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 06:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

2015-08 confirmation[edit]

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Hesperian 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 in both rôles Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
* Symbol support vote.svg Support BD2412 T 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and will vote for you again with a sock if you validate Index:Admiral Phillip.djvu smileybillinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In order to head off this dire threat, I have completed this validation. So there. BD2412 T 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support admin flag, but I would weakly Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bureaucrat flag for the reason of site efficiency, with nothing personal, especially when BirgitteSB may be de-flagged soon and Zhaladshar has not had bureaucrat activity for more than a year. Having just one active bureaucrat could concentrate the power to one user too much, while any disinterested stewards could do bureaucrats' work with better efficiency. These are the reasons why I would quit four bureaucrat flags elsewhere. May I propose splitting the administrator and bureaucrat confirmations starting next time?--Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLondonjackbooks (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

2016-09 confirmation[edit]

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Hesperian 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 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AuFCL (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

2017-10 confirmation[edit]

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Hesperian 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 in both rôles Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
* Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 06:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support BD2412 T 22:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportHrishikes (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Provisionally Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bureaucrat's flag but support administrator's flag. Why mix bureaucrat's confirmation here? If any administrator is also a bureaucrat or checkuser, each restricted access should be separately confirmed. Mixing up may look suspicious as manipulating the process to avoid losing any bureaucrat while I see no bureaucrats' action after 14 May 2017. [3] To support continuing any bureaucrat, please do it separately with no more mix up with administrator's flag.--Jusjih (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The most recent test of community consensus on splitting confirmations is here; feel free to start a new discussion if you think consensus has changed. Hesperian 00:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      No change from me. Splitting as you have done is sufficient. Personally I don't like voting against a person 'crat's flag because you don't like crats. Please have that discussion separately to the community rather than be divisive, noting that I would still favour our retention of that right. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretfully Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I find this deleted edit troubling, particularly coming from an administrator. Spangineer (háblame) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not the best moment, but we all occasionally need to blow off steam. Doing that through a posted-and-deleted rant is not nearly as bad as doing that through some abuse of the admin tools, which didn't happen here. BD2412 T 21:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      • What was worst about it, and the reason I deleted it, was it was too broad: I intended to have a crack at a specific small number of people who are continually inconsiderate in the way they go about their business here, and thus negatively impact others' enjoyment of the site. But when I realised that others, not of that small number, who were just trying to help, might think it was directed at them, then I was ashamed of myself, and deleted it. No, not the best moment. Hesperian 00:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Spangineer:: Thanks for pointing out a controversy, so now I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Gotcha.--Jusjih (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Jusjih: What is "Gotcha" about? I have much more sympathy for an uncharacteristic—albeit honest—venting of a deep frustration than I do for one who revels in so-called "controversy" (unless I misunderstand). Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • YesY without hesitation — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both flags —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    • To @Spangineer:, @Jusjih: and to the community in general, Under the circumstances, I don't think that there is anything wrong with venting one's feelings once in a while. It was done, get over it and move on. I happen to be sympathetic and understanding of Hesperian's frustration about others' attitude towards his favourite project. It would have been a far better contribution to his efforts "by those others" if his proofread pages would have been validated. — Ineuw talk 06:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ineuw: That's fine; I understand that position. And I appreciate Hesperian's frustration, and the hard work that he has put into this project. But I do not believe that such an extremely aggressive response was appropriate, even if it had been clearly restricted to only those people that were causing the frustration. Hesperian, you, and others seem to disagree with me on this. Personally I prefer to participate in environments in which such attacks are not tolerated, but others prefer a more sympathetic approach. That's understandable, but it doesn't change my regretful oppose. Spangineer (háblame) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — I trust that they'll make the right decisions for the project in their capacities as admin, bureaucrat, and editor. Prosody (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support C. F. 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)