Jump to content

Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Zhaladshar

Add links
From Wikisource
< Wikisource:Administrators | Archives
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Hesperian in topic Zhaladshar

Zhaladshar

Latest comment: 5 years ago146 comments62 people in discussion

2005-04 admin

The text in the box below was copied from the multilingual Wikisource nomination archives.

I do a lot of clean-up where it would be easier for me just to delete orphaned redirect pages then use them to clutter up our proposed deletions page. And of course, there's always the wonderful vandalism we have to revert. Zhaladshar 14:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. Yann 15:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Pour. Marc 09:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Christian S 11:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ThomasV 12:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appointed. oldwikisource:User:Anthere 15:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2006-03 checkuser (failed)

The text in the box below was copied from the merged discussion when it was split into the individual users.

Pathoschild and I spoke recently about problems here on Wikisource with cross-project vandals and sockpuppets, and the potential for Checkuser to identify such accounts. Pathoschild expressed the desire to become a local checkuser for Wikisource, but was unsure if there was another individual here who had the technical skills and the desire to become a checkuser. (Foundation policy requires there be two checkusers on a project; if two are not approved, there can be no local checkuser.) As a en.wikipedia checkuser, I have the requisite technical abilities, and I am always willing to serve where needed; I indicated to Pathoschild that I would be willing to serve as the second local checkuser in order for Wikisource to be able to have local checkusers. As such, I am nominating Pathoschild and myself to serve as local checkusers, if the community believes there is need for such. (If there is a more active local user who has the technical knowledge and desire to serve, I will be more than happy to withdraw from consideration.)

More information on checkuser can be found at m:Checkuser. I have made separate voting sections for Pathoschild & I in case others wish to submit themselves for consideration (we can have as many as we like, but must have at least two for the status to be granted at all). Essjay Talk • Contact 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Current checkuser

Just for information I believe Yann already has a checkuser facility.
As a steward, yes, as a local checkuser, no; stewards have the ability to temporarily grant themselves checkuser to perform checks on wikis without local checkusers, but it is more difficult to find a steward to perform a checkuser than it is to have a local checkuser do it. If he's willing to stand as a local checkuser, I'll withdraw. Essjay Talk • Contact 13:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I noted recently that User:Ambi has checkuser status on WP. She has been an admin here from the early days, but have not been very active in recent months. Apwoolrich 18:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing self-nom

With the entry of Zhaladshar, I withdraw as I said I would. If a technical advisor is needed, please feel free to ask. Specifically, using the interface is not difficult, but interpreting the results (separating shared IPs from actual sockpuppets, etc.) can be very, very difficult, especially if you are not familiar with the workings of IP addresses; for example, IP ranges, dynamic IPs, proxies used for routing (many countries, especially Middle Eastern ones, route all thier traffic through routing proxies for "control purposes", and blocking one of these shared proxies blocks the whole country (I accidentally blocked all of Saudi Arabia once...)) etc. can result in false positives. Best of luck to the candidates Essjay Talk • Contact 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Denied

For historical reference on why Wikisource's request was denied, see the Wikisource news stories "Voting begins on two for CheckUser access" (30 March 2006) and "Local CheckUser status in doubt" (19 April 2006). —{admin} Pathoschild 21:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there need to be two local checkusers, and since I'm very active in the project and can be reached very easily via e-mail (odds are, if you e-mail me, I'll know in about one minute) almost most of the day, I'm requesting candidacy for the second checkuser slot.

Support

  1. Yes AllanHainey 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support --BirgitteSB 17:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, wholeheartedly. Apwoolrich 18:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support --Politicaljunkie 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. As the local bureaucrat, long-standing administrator, and editor in spotless standing, Zhaladshar has more than demonstrated his responsibility and commitment to the project. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yann 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - Danny 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Absolutely. Dovi 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - illy 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support--Jusjih 15:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - See above --Robert Horning 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support --Kernigh 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Antireconciler 21:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - Bookofjude 00:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

2006-09 confirmation

status oldwikisource administrator since 30 April 2006 (unanimous)
bureaucrat since 12 September 2006 (founding user)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions adminship (passed), CheckUser (failed, too few votes)

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

2007-10 confirmation

status oldwikisource administrator since 30 April 2005 (unanimous)
bureaucrat since 12 September 2006 (founding user)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions

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

2008-11 confirmation

status
  • administrator since 30 April 2005 (unanimous)
  • bureaucrat since 12 September 2006 (founding user)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions

2009-12 confirmation

Administrator since 30 April 2005 and Bureaucrat since 12 September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

—Confirmed billinghurst (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2011-01 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:

confirmed


Administrator since 30 April 2005 and bureaucrat since 12 September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2012-02 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2013-03 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2014-04 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2015-05 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  •  Support — Zyephyrus (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support continuing as an active administrator, but  Oppose continuing as a bureaucrat for no logged actions after 2012-11-17 with nothing personal. Bureaucrats' roles have reduced when no longer able to rename users. At my peak, I was once a bureaucrat on four wikis, but I have quit all of these flags. I was once asked about having no bureaucrat log on Wikimedia Commons for 4 months. [1] I did not have to quit, but I voluntarily left and found being an administrator but no bureaucrat much easier. Kindly asking you to reconsider your bureaucrat flag, I do support your continuing as an administrator. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    I am the active 'crat here; I do the monthly admin closures and promotions, and I was previously doing the renames. I'm afraid I don't leave much for Zhaladshar and BirgitteSB to do. However, the very fact of my higher activity and involvement makes it more likely that I will sometimes encounter a conflict of interest or some other reason to recuse from making a tough call. This has happened from time to time, and it has been a comfort to me personally, and of benefit to the site, that we have other 'crats we can turn to, who are community 'insiders', yet are reliably uninvolved in any issues of the day. Hesperian 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. You are the most bureaucrat, but in case any conflict of interest is a concern with just 3 bureaucrats, phasing out all bureaucrats to turn over the roles to disinterested stewards would be more efficient for long term. This has happened on Chinese Wikisource, Chinese Wikibooks, and Chinese Wiktionary where all bureaucrats including myself are gone.--Jusjih (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support — Ineuw talk 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support — George Orwell III (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support —Clockery_Fairfeld 20:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

2016-06 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2017-07 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2018-08 confirmation

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.

2019-09 confirmation (not confirmed)

The following discussion is closed:

Not confirmed. Hesperian 22:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
  •  Oppose remaining a bureaucrat and an administrator for long inactivity.--Jusjih (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Inactivity has now run to over two years. The tools can always be reinstated if he returns to active editing. BD2412 T 01:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per inactivity. Ankry (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose both per above. I didn't want to be the first one to oppose, though. Zhaladshar has historically made greatly important contributions to this project, but it's been two years with no edits. That's just a few too many. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose since we're spelling stuff out… I'm not opposed to Zhaladshar being an admin/bureaucrat; just opposed to the user account Zhaladshar having advanced bits while inactive. I think removing bits after even shorter periods of inactivity than this is a good idea, and no removal of bits for inactivity should in itself in any way reflect on or prejudice against regaining those bits on return to editing. Which is, aiui, both current policy and practice, modulo waiting a little too long to remove bits in my opinion. --Xover (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the rest of you. --Josephina Phoebe White (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Removal of rights requested.[3] Hesperian 22:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Zhaladshar&oldid=14663513"