Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Tarmstro99

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 Tarmstro99.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Tarmstro99[edit]

2007-10 admin[edit]

Tarmstro99 (talkcontribs)

In addition to working on the ongoing projects listed on my user page and reverting vandalism when I see it, I’ve recently been trying to tackle broader issues across the site, such as connecting unlinked pages to the rest of WS (or identifying new orphans), updating categories, and the like. I’ll continue trying to make useful contributions of that sort in any event, but if the site admins can use another pair of hands (or eyeballs), I’d be happy to assist in that capacity also. Tarmstro99 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was recently looking through Tarmstro99's contribs as a result of the help given during the recent gibberish vandalism spree, and came away thinking this user looks suitable as an admin.
So, to quickly give a more detailed run down ... Tarmstro99 joined in August 2005, with three spurts of activity prior to early 2007, resulting in the addition of "United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1", "BMG Music v. Gonzalez" and "Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components", and starting to work on the categorisation of law cases and improvement of Wikisource:Case law‎.
Since early 2007, new case decisions are added in quick succession, coupled with lots of additions and improvements to United States Code. The first community participation came around March 26 with an interesting note on WS:COPYVIO about possible problems with works covered by {{PD-self}}, and welcoming Usdiplomat (talkcontribs) (sadly that user hasnt been back since the first day of activity), and listing Image:56101.jpg as a copyvio. From that time on, Tarmstro99 has participated in copyvio and proposed deletion discussions at a level on par with established users, and started tackling non-law related issues like vandalism, unlinked texts, fixing and creating author pages, etc, etc. John Vandenberg 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, Tarmstro99 appears to have a steady hand and a genuine interest in the improvement of Wikisource. We do need more hands on deck to deal with the mundane administration, so that we all have more time to investigate the often complex cases on the two deletion forums, answer new users questions, and develop new ways to make our site useful to readers. What is more, Tarmstro99's involvement in the community discussions has been intelligent. John Vandenberg 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Per nom Support... (and what were we waiting for on promoting John? :) I think he's ripe... ) ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 15:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--BirgitteSB 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Trustworthy and knowledgeable with the desire to help out here. FloNight 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support.Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; looks like a trustworthy user. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Politicaljunkie 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

2008-12 confirmation[edit]

  • Absolutely. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hesperian 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure; I've not encountered this user, but seems to be doing good things and making good use of the mop. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Cirt (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes! - Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ---Zyephyrus (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I don't have any personal interaction with Tarmstro99, but after a quick perusal of his logs, I definitely get the sense that he's one of the Good Ones. EVula // talk // // 16:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per EVula.RlevseTalk 14:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportJoJoTalk 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportAnonymous DissidentTalk 11:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Thank you for your help during the past year. FloNight (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

2010-01 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since 9 November 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Support, specialist knowledge is invaluable. billinghurst (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support; looks fine from over here. Hesperian 05:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with billinghurst. —LarryGilbert (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Phe (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


2011-02 confirmation[edit]

admin since Oct 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2012-03 confirmation[edit]

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • support admin mop required and used well — billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportGeorge Orwell III (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ----Zyephyrus (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ----Mpaa (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support— Just stopped to look at the most recent of Tarmstro's 11,000 edits. Thousands having to do with U.S. statutes and other laws, nothing but the U.S. Constitution stuff that would get him popular recognition, but all contributing to an eminently useful public service at his expense. And Tarmstrobot (1,000 of the 11,000 edits) is a comprehensive OCR supplementation procedure which I'm sure has eliminated an abundance of repetitive human proofreading drudgery. ResScholar (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2013-04 confirmation[edit]

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2014-05 confirmation[edit]

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Support administrator's flag, but oppose bureaucrat's flag. I wonder if we still need local bureaucrats when all three had the last logs years ago (Tarmstro99 on 2011-05-10, BirgitteSB on 2011-11-02, Zhaladshar on 2012-11-17), but if many other users still support keeping any bureaucrats even with no recent logs, I will respect their thoughts.--Jusjih (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tarmstro99 is not a bureaucrat. The third 'crat is Hesperian (log). —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    Hesperian did have a bureaucrat's log on 2014-04-29. I wonder what Tarmstro99's last bureaucrat log on 2011-05-10 would mean. [1]. Without changing my supporting Tarmstro99's adminship, I will check back next year.--Jusjih (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    I have a bureaucrat log also, also not now or ever a bureaucrat no idea why. Jeepday (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    If I might make a guess, that tool is seeing changes to the "bot user" flag in the user rights log, and wrongly labelling it as a crat action. Hesperian 01:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    If anybody is interested, as confirmed using User:Clockery as guinea-pig, here and here, changing another user's rights is logged this way as well, even though she also has never held the bureaucrat bit here. AuFCL (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe all userrights changes are logged as bureaucrat actions...? Can't think of anything other than that. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 05:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    Correct, the toolmaker has collected rights allocations under 'crats' actions. Old tool, and traditionally it was crats who did rights changes when the systems where simpler. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg AbstainClockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like he's back. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 15:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain - Pushing the limits of "Active" Last admin action 15:40, 30 April 2012; less than 10 edits since July 2013. Unless Tarmstro99 is lurking I have concerns they are loosing touch with trends and community consensus on Wikisource, making it difficult to act as community representative. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support—surely the lad deserves credit for not having made any slip-ups at all during the period? And in any case I don't see any request to resign either. AuFCL (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — While an account's lack of activity would normally concern me here, history shows he mostly works in 'chunks at a time' - setting up multiple volumes through TarmstroBot first and then goes back whenever he has the time to Proofread within them.

    The last I "heard" from him was he was still stuck locating & scanning all the missing volumes in the U.S. Statutes at Large series. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have absolutely no concerns with Tim's lows in activity. We have never put the bar high for adminship, and is part of why we have no intermediate rights classes. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

2015-06 confirmation[edit]

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2016-07 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I find it amazing that after seven years, there are admins and editors whose path I never crossed, (or made them cross.) :-D — Ineuw talk 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep--Jusjih (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • YesYbillinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepProsody (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepIneuw talk 01:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

2017-08 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2018-09 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Tarmstro99 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - recently active enough. BD2412 T 02:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jusjih (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportbillinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support C. F. 20:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)