Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Newmanbe

newmanbe

2006-11 admin

I would like to be an administrator so I may use the import feature. I have editing Wikipedia as a "Wikisorceite" — id est, adding links back to Wikisource from Wikipedia — when I re-found w:Category:Copy to Wikisource (and then Transwiki). I would like to be able to help whittle both of those down. --Benn Newman 17:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Benn Newman 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A good contributor, devoted to the project. -- Danny 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure I have enough standing here to support but if I do, Benn's a good egg. Support -- Lar 02:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• 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.. --BirgitteSB 03:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. Dovi 04:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Jusjih 09:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Appointed.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

2007-12 confirmation

status	administrator since 18 November 2006 (unanimous)
activity	active (contributions, logs)
discussions	2006-11-18: adminship (passed)

• Support - still a good egg. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 2 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. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill} 06:34, 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 Vandenberg 09:48, 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. FloNight 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Impressive amount of deletions, sufficient use of admin tools. - Politicaljunkie 00:56, 11 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.--BirgitteSB 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, pattern of contributions (including deletions) strike me as quite positive and beneficial to the project. Tarmstro99 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Dovi 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Stranger's support. I haven't come across you directly, but have looked at your contributions, and see no reason for you not to keep your tools. How about finishing The Whys and Wherefores of Navigation now? Cowardly Lion 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2009-01 confirmation (failed)

status	administrator since 18 November 2006 (unanimous)
activity	active (contributions, logs)
discussions	2006-11-18: adminship (passed) 2007-12: confirmation (passed)

• Respectfully Oppose

  • 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.

  This was my vote against confirmation a year ago, and while I have seen less egregious actions taken by newmanbe this year; that is chiefly because he has become "relatively inactive" compared to last year - making only a small handful of about twenty edits over the past year, and only two edits to Talk: space, hasn't blocked any vandals since 2007, Activity isn't a "requirement" for admins, but we have an obligation to our readers to keep our list of Administrators as easily available and reachable people with a consistent history of improving the project -- newmanbe has unfortunately shown while he is active he has a tendency to just "delete what he wants, without asking permission or seeking others' guidance" often to disasterous results (he deleted for example, the 1914 The Sword of Islam, September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts, Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC, 9/11 Dispatcher transcript, Osama bin Laden's letter of assurance to a Mujahadeen father, Bin Laden's letter to Mullah Mohammed Omar, Bin Laden's letter to Pakistani scholars, An Open Letter to King Fahd on the Occasion of the Recent Cabinet Reshuffle and even Author:Osama bin Laden, all of which required lengthy review processes to have undeleted, wasting administrator time in undoing what he had done and declared "valid".) While I don't think he's done anything so malicious as to merit disciplinary action, I do feel he has misused the administrator tools frequently enough that I'd rather if/when he does return to "active status" on Wikisource - he not be handed the same tools again. He was a poor administrator, then he went largely inactive...I don't see any reason to water down our project's integrity by "assuming" he'll be a good administrator when/if he returns. De-admin, he can apply again later if he believes he's changed. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus.} 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The editor has not been active much during my time here, but what activity I have seen has been appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Desysop, has not replied to question at User_talk:Newmanbe#The_Elements_of_Euclid, which was raised over two weeks ago. I don't understand why the edit history of pages such as The Elements of Euclid/Preface should be deleted. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  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)

Confirmation failed--BirgitteSB 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)