Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Newmanbe. See current discussion or the archives index.
Oppose, no eggs for admin.Support. Newmanbe is a good contributor, is in touch with the community on IRC, has no issues discussing, and is willing to help new users; ergo, the ideal administrator.—{admin} Pathoschild 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Support All the makings of a good admin and nothing that worries me. He does still seem to be rather new to me, but I remember Pathoschild did too when he ran for adminship. So that is a good precedent. The people that become old hats before they become admins seem to promptly disappear after being promoted. I wonder if there is that is coincidence or something we should keep in mind.. --BirgitteSB03:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully Oppose - nothing personal, I've honestly tried to strain out my personal issues with you, but still can't bring myself to consider your adminship to have had a positive influence on the project. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since becoming an administrator a year ago;
you haven't added a single text to the project?
since your first month as admin you've consistently deleted your own nominations after a single vote, or worse, when the deletion was disputed, writing off opposing opinions as "No user has provided sufficient argument" and deleted them regardless. These deletions have since been appealed, and the works restored.
At the end of the day, I hope you do remain with the project and help us expand our library of free works - but I think your contributions before being granted administrator status were more helpful than your contributions since being granted that status - and would welcome seeing a return to that status. SherurcijCollaboration of the Week:Author:Winston Churchill06:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, 719 deletions (a few are curious, but the ones I have looked into appear reasonable), 62 non-automatic patrols, and 27 blocks. In order to avoid admins having to delete the copyvio's they raise, we need more admins to close, not less, and more admins who patrol changes. John Vandenberg09:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Plenty active with admin tools to suit me. Being an active content editor is good for the community but not necessarily the only way to show your commitment to make Wikisource a thriving wiki. Thanks for your service to the project this past year. Keep at it. FloNight01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Support A great help with the grunt work of reviewing Recent Changes. Considering the greater number of admins available now, closing of his own nominations should not be an issue in the future. Lack of new text additions does not bother me considering the massive amount of clean-up work that needs to be done around here.--BirgitteSB22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully Oppose - nothing personal, I've honestly tried to strain out my personal issues with you, but still can't bring myself to consider your adminship to have had a positive influence on the project. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since becoming an administrator a year ago;
you haven't added a single text to the project?
since your first month as admin you've consistently deleted your own nominations after a single vote, or worse, when the deletion was disputed, writing off opposing opinions as "No user has provided sufficient argument" and deleted them regardless. These deletions have since been appealed, and the works restored.
the last text you did add, more than a year ago is still missing 75% of its chapters.
At the end of the day, I hope you do remain with the project and help us expand our library of free works - but I think your contributions before being granted administrator status were more helpful than your contributions since being granted that status - and would welcome seeing a return to that status.
The reply does not sit well with me, as the Page namespace does not make mainspace pages redundant and worthy of deletion. Also, mentioning that it was "incomplete" is not a good reason for deletion, especially in light of the concern raised in the last reconfirmation that The Whys and Wherefores of Navigation is still incomplete. John Vandenberg(chat)12:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Been watching for a return to editing and a response to question about his use of admin tools. Since no reply, desysop. FloNight (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply noted. Uncertain if admin discretion was (in)appropriate in this matter. Default would not deleting unless it was the community norm. Since previously a number his of deletions were undeleted, getting feedback for questionable deletion would be wise. That said, deletions can be undeleted, so no perm harm was done. So, this was not major error. For now leaving desysop vote, but I could be persuaded to change my mind if this is viewed as a routine deletion by most users, or Newmanbe indicates that he will request and get feedback in the future for similarly questionable deletions. FloNight (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)