Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Politicaljunkie

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Politicaljunkie.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Politicaljunkie[edit]

2006-08 admin[edit]

I would like to become an administrator as I have been an active contributor for six months. I've contributed in a variety of ways and substantially, by adding speeches and radio addresses, organizing pages and categories, adding headers, and fighting vandalism. My edit summary can be found here. I have also contributed by using PoliticalBot. The bot has uploaded over 3,000 executive orders and presidential proclamations. It has also added headers and templates to pages. Its edit summary can be found here. - Politicaljunkie 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I kinda of forgot you weren't an admin. We certainly need more hands at Deletions and Copyvio. --BirgitteSB 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. You do a lot of good work here, and we could definitely use more help with maintenance/administrative tasks.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support We can always use more help, and you've made alot of good contributions.--Shanel 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I thought you already were. AllanHainey 12:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As clearing copyvios here is much more complex than at Chinese Wikisource as I think, I think that you deserve adminship here to help us.--Jusjih 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Like Birgitte, I didn't realise that you weren't already! :) Jude (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderful. Dovi 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2007-09 confirmation[edit]

  • Support continued adminship. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:59:29, 01 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship.--GrafZahl (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for continued use of admin tools for another year. FloNight 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship. --BirgitteSB 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral while the user page has nothing.--Jusjih 01:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Added a brief description on my user page. - Politicaljunkie 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed to support for continued adminship.--Jusjih 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:54:21, 01 October 2007 (UTC)

2008-10 confirmation[edit]

  • Comment. Activity level meets my definition of active for an user that is contributing to other Wikimedia Foundation projects as well of Wikisource. I do not see the need for a constant level of activity here for an user to be a productive member of this Community. That said, does anyone know if Politicaljunkie is contributing to any other wikis? I did not see any contributions under the same name on the few that I checked. If no contributions are being made on any wikis that Politicaljunkie has accounts, then I would suggest removing the tools until active here again. FloNight (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Making clear my vote is to Remove. No communication during the last month and no edits. FloNight (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    Of interest: Politicaljunie's global contribs. Doesn't look like he's active anywhere, but I also don't think he has a unified login (technically, there's no Politicaljunkie account on Wikiversity; they're transwiki'd contribs), so the link could be misleading. EVula // talk // 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    See CrossActivity, which shows no recent activity on any Wikimedia wiki. He has one other account on the English Wikipedia, where he has been inactive since 2006, and does not have a global account. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:31:54, 03 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I say keep as admin for another year and see what happens. June isn't all that long ago; he could still be planning to come back. If he doesn't, we can desysop him next year. Angr 16:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Technically, Politicaljunkie is not inactive (by our definition of it). I vote for continued adminship for another year and see if he becomes more active.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As Angr points out, June isn't that long ago, and looking over the contribs, it looks like there's a lot of "coming and going" to his editing schedule. If he is indeed inactive, there's no harm in his having the tools until next year. EVula // talk // 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop, 10 sysop actions in 12 months isnt active in my books. We have a reconfirmation process if Politicaljunkie intends to return to prior activity levels. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with JV. Giggy (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While their last edit was in June, there were only five or so edits in that day, a single day in June. The user contributions log goes back until late 2007 before there's any regular activity. Desysop, if they come back and want the tools, they can re-request (like I did!). Jude (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep pretty much per the other keeps. RlevseTalk 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If inactivity continues then the tools can be removed at the next review. Durova (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop, we have an obligation so that casual users can "contact" any member of our administration team to resolve an issue in a prompt manner and help them. Listing inactive people seems to stymie that purpose. At the same time, like most others, I would have no problem voting to reinstate PoliticalJunkie in the future if/when he returns. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 07:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed This confirmation resulted in mixed opinions above. Current policy reads An inactive user is one who has not edited during the past four months. Inactive user automatically lose their restricted access in their next scheduled confirmation vote unless at least half of the voting community supports continued access. By policy Politicaljunkie should not be classified as inactive for automatic desysoping. While the arguments speaking for removal of access above are all listing account inactivity they are neither agreeing with the definition of inactivity stated in policy nor are they necessarily using the same definition themselves. The split opinions above did not reach consensus within the month so I am confirming Politicaljunkie's adminship by defaulting to both the status quo and stated policy.

  • As a side note it might be good time to review how the policy measures inactivity and for the dissenters to present some alternative proposals in the Scriptorium.--BirgitteSB 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

2009-10 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed :
Not confirmed
Administrator since September 2007 by consensus (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Politicaljunkie will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
Achtung.svg The requirements for a vote of confidence are met below; the user's continued access will be decided by a simple majority of established voters.
  • Oppose. Politicaljunkie's last confirmation passed, but they have not edited since then. Oppose for the same reasons I opposed last year. Jude (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while the other two are only inactive ~4 months; PJ has been inactive over a year. If/when he returns, he can re-apply for adminship without prejudice. But having inactives listed on the Administrator list is bad for communication. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 06:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Comment I have sent Politicaljunkie a courtesy note that their adminship is being discussed here. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wot they said. billinghurst (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I supported last year in case he wanted to come back and be active again, but it seems he didn't. Angr 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose — as inactive. Jack Merridew 09:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not confirmed.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)