Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Jusjih

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 Jusjih.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Jusjih[edit]

2005-09 admin[edit]

  • I would like to apply for adminship here as well. I am already an administrator at the old multilingual Wikisource. --Jusjih 08:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 18:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Dovi 18:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportZhaladshar (Talk) 21:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

2006-09 confirmation[edit]

  • Support continued adminship. —{admin} Pathoschild01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship. --BirgitteSB 01:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship.--Shanel 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship. - Politicaljunkie 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship. - AllanHainey 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

2007-10 confirmation[edit]

  • Support continued access. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:08:05, 01 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access--BirgitteSB 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access. FloNight 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access. - Politicaljunkie 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access. John Vandenberg 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support even though it's not needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, keep up the good work. Dovi 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued access. ThomasV 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2008-11 confirmation[edit]

  • I favour confirmation; active and productive user. —Pathoschild 00:09:07, 05 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm, active but quite. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm, John Vandenberg (chat) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • ConfirmJack Merridew 10:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm. --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Durova (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm EVula // talk // 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • ConfirmZhaladshar (Talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm--Shanel (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm productive user, positive contributor to the project. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm. Synergy 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm FloNight (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm.--GrafZahl (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirm--Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2009-12 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since 18 September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
    • Self statement: First, I would like to thank all supporters since the past time. Since using Multilingual Wikisource before having language subdomains, I started liking source texts and I still like them. While administering English Wikisource, I have seen growing development here. Challenges are also in our way. For example, whether United Nations resolutions would be copyrighted once troubled us, until evidence of licensing became found, which would also clear Chinese and French Wikisources of the turmoil. Being the only administrator of both English and Chinese Wikisources, I always feel myself like an important bridge. To better comply with our copyright policy, Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto is a major ongoing discussion while Canadian Wikilivres:, where I also administer, has much better position to host public manifestos that we have often presumed them in the "public domain", only to see likely abuse of that copyright "license". Once again, thanks for your supports and I look forward to bringing more improvement.--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, again, without hesitation. Jude (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, what he ^^^ said billinghurst (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, no worries. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --John Vandenberg (chat) 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportAnonymous DissidentTalk 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Tarmstro99 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed billinghurst (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2011-01 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: confirmed
Administrator since 18 September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2012-02 confirmation[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2013-03 confirmation[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2014-04 confirmation[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2015-05 confirmation[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2016-06 confirmation[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have lost confidence in this admin, because he no longer meets any of the five Nomination standards. In particular, he seems very out of touch with the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have been very busy with matters outside wiki with reduced time checking here. Please assure that I do remember here, like checking the copyright discussions with many complex backlogs. Thanks for continuously supporting me with some unique East Asian cultural links.--Jusjih (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Admin rights simply give admin tools, which Jusjih has been using without criticism from the community. If we are going to start modifying our expectations of administrators for the retention of tools, then we should be looking to update WS:Adminship through community discussion. I also think that for a positive aspect to confirmations, especially where wish to recommend de-adminship, that we could be looking to express what is desired to remedy expressed shortcomings.

    enWS community (historically) has expressed a desire for a simple hierarchical rights model ("basic" > "patrolled" -> "admin"), and we rejected intermediate rights configurations (see rollbackers discussion in 2010 [1]). I think that the statement that encapsulated the 2010 position re adminship and rights is …

[enWS is] liberal with Admin privileges which helps foster community, prevent cabals and hierarchies, etc. Introducing a medium-grade rank could undo that, and because of our unique raison d'etre, vandalism is a very small problem...as is admin abuse.

—Sherurcij

As such we either trust people and give them tools to use, or we change our trust model that adminship is more than tools, it is about leading and continuing to lead. I actually still see them as separate. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You might want to reread the criteria as stated at WS:Adminship. It does not need to be updated because the criteria invoked in this discussion are already there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To me, you are conflating "nominating standards" ('at the time' expectations) with "obligations of administrators" (ongoing expectations). My commentary was to more generally address some of our more recent comments in discussions on this page that seem to be raised that sit outside the ability to utilise tools within community expectations. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems you didn't read the whole page. Look at "Loss of adminship" at the bottom. One of the reasons for loss of adminship is that the community loses confidence in them. Nothing you have said thus far changes that opinion, nor addresses the fact that it is explicitly given as a reason for loss of adminship.
In any event, if a person was put forward as an admin on the basis that they met certain criteria, but no longer meet those criteria for nomination at a later date, I fail to see how that would be anything but a problem. Or do you mean that we selecting people to do a job on the basis of criteria that have nothing to do with the job? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not having a specific opinion on your reasons, I am just saying that adminship states the obligations, and if we are saying that the obligations are changed/judged differently by the community then we should have a discussion to change the criteria. In my experience the deadminship for loss of confidence has been for actions taken in contravention of their obligations. PS. Trust me, I read the whole page, know its words and its intent around the time of its drafting; and the commentary here more recently is a change to the past. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

<--
I think for most people the nominating standards for admins are included in the ongoing expectations. Using the tools wisely is an additional expectation that naturally didn't exist when the admins didn't have access to the admin tools. Removing inactive admins for "inactivity" isn't a commentary on their trustworthiness, it's a commentary on their level of participation here. Retaining inactive users as admins makes no sense to me -- it suggests that Wikisource has 30+ highly dedicated, experienced, and active volunteers here and now. That's misleading to more casual and inexperienced volunteers. I think we should avoid misleading casual and inexperienced volunteers. Outlier59 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst and Outlier59 each have good points: community trust is a requirement for sysop nomination; but both leadership and maintained trust (of either procedural or technical aspect—ideally both) is required for continuance of higher authority.

With regards Jusjih I see no reason for changing my existing vote below. AuFCL (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAuFCL (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with EncycloPetey. While I appreciate this admin's contributions to copyright discussions, I think admins need to be actively involved more broadly with maintaining and improving this English Wikisource to be an admin here. Jusjih can obviously be trusted with the tools, but the admin role, as EncycloPetey noted, also includes being widely active HERE in English Wikisource. Outlier59 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Yann (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Jusjih does an excellent job with some tasks that no one else seems to do (particularly with proposed deletions) and I hope they continue to do so. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepSpangineer (háblame) 12:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)