Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/EVula
|
Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by EVula. See current discussion or the archives index. |
2008-11 admin
In our wiki since Oct. 2006, ...
| improving our headers since February 2007 | broken link to Wikipedia; adding a Wikipedia excerpt for readers; [citation needed]? |
| add interwiki links since September 2007 | Polish Macbeth; syncing Shakespeare's author page; Russian Sonnet 132 |
| reading WS:COPYVIO since November 2007 | proof! |
And then in August 2008, after 40 edits over two years, EVula became active, with this picky edit seeming to bring on the rush. Since then there have been plenty of corrections, reverting vandalism, pres. fixes, copyright answers, deletion discussions, etc.
Clearly a follyglot; here is a list of 30+ wikisource projects that EVula has been working on, mostly setting up {{InterLanguage-AuthorsByLetter}} everywhere, but also unifying our subprojects by adding links between templates and project pages.
[1][2][3][4][5][6] (I could fill ten pages of diffs, many not on en.ws)
To complement that, in less then two months (since mid September), EVula also has done nearly 500 edits in Page: namespace; proofreading, validating, and even downgrading some pages, bugging people, and helping in the decisions. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I accept, though I feel terrible that you had to spend so much time pulling together all those diffs. :) EVula // talk // 15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support — No concerns, obviously. re that matrix: tl:dr!!! And don't worry about the time John put in on the diffs, he'll get the work back out of you ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great contributor. Will be more helpful to WS with the extra tools. Thanks for volunteering. :-) FloNight (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Impressive cross wiki presence. Jeepday (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Sure. :) Durova (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Has experience with the tools. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns. Psychless 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support —Dark talk 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support a fine all-round Wikimedian. Angr 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Appointed--BirgitteSB 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2009-10 confirmation
The following discussion is closed:
Confirmed
- Support, No concerns. Activity dropped in February when EVula was elected as an oversighter on English Wikipedia at a time when we desperately needed more hands on deck. EVula travels around the wikis a lot. In addition to adding Wikisource links to other projects, I've spotted him over at Romanian Wikisource and Korean Wikisource, linking our projects together. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have sent EVula a courtesy note that his adminship is being discussed here. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns at this time. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per John Vandenberg. Angr 07:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support — Jack Merridew 09:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmed.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
2010-12 confirmation (failed)
- comment—left a note that up for confirmation and had been noted as inactive — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Leaning support. Inactive enough for desysop according to policy, but still active on other projects. I assume he has email notifications enabled, and would respond promptly if a newbie randomly asked him a question. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Desysop. 8 edits in 18 months. Sysops should be familiar faces who are active, and reasonably up to date on current discussions and consensus. Hesperian 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak desysop If he's still active elsewhere and wanted to remain involved in WS, no doubt he'd be active here too.--Longfellow (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- desysop inactive and not particularly a user of tools (see above Admin statistics), welcome back when able — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Desysop inactive under the criteria, hasn't replied to a request for statement of activity in 13 days, I think we can assume he's not coming back any time soon. Of course, if he does want to return to adminship, that's fine when the time comes. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- weak support per John, and I simply can't say no given the most recent edit. ws has shown me tolerance for gaps here when I'm intent over there and I appreciate that. An un-bit is certainly a reasonable thing, too, and I've no problem with that outcome, either. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Desysop. Seems to have only been active for a couple of months in 2008. It would be trivial for EVula to regain adminship should he want to become active again in the future. Jafeluv (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not confirmed, with bureaucrat agreement. —Pathoschild 19:45:31, 02 January 2011 (UTC)
- Requested desysop Meta--BirgitteSB 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done. —Pathoschild 20:07:33, 02 January 2011 (UTC)
2012-08 admin
The following discussion is closed:
Successful. Hesperian 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
EVula (talk • contribs) • activity • Global EVula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
I'm back.
Well, for the most part. I'm a former admin (Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/EVula), but I lost my sysop bit due to inactivity, which was in turn due to the terrors of Real Life. I was back for a very brief span last year, at which point billinghurst suggested I make another run at RfA; I turned him down at that point because I wasn't sure I'd be able to stick around (which was a good call on my part, because sure enough, I wasn't). However, after going to Wikimania a few weeks ago, I've been steadily returning to various wikis, which has included Wikisource. I've renewed my insanity-inducing interwiki interest and have done a little bit of proofing, but more importantly I'm starting to feel a need for the mop again (for example, I've spotted a couple of things on RC that other admins beat me to the punch on, simply because... uh, well, I couldn't really punch).
In the larger wiki-picture, I'm a bureaucrat (and former oversighter) on enwiki, a bureaucrat on the English Wikiquote, a former admin and oversighter on the Simple English Wikipedia, an admin on Commons, and have almost 57k edits across 644 projects, all manual (no bots or assisted edits). In addition to my 1800 edits here, I've got 100+ edits on the Korean, French, Spanish, and Russian editions of Wikisource (all edits from imagery- or interwiki-related edits), and have been granted the editor flag on a half-dozen non-English projects.
I always told myself that once I actually felt a legit need for the mop (and felt comfortable saying that I'd be active and thinking/knowing it would be true), I'd try to get the bit back, and so that brings us up to right now, in what was an exceedingly boring story. EVula // talk // 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
TL;DR version: "Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but I'm a former admin, so promote me maybe?
- support with gusto and would suggest that maybe we could fast track this request. Sysop of good faith. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- support --Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support and welcome back! Angr 16:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support — George Orwell III (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support — Happy to see you back. --Zyephyrus (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support, as a reinstatement of tools where loss was procedural (due to inactivity), echoing billinghurst’s suggestion that a full 30 day window is not needed for this re-activation. Jeepday (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- ...30 days? Yikes, Wikisource:Adminship#Nomination procedure says a week, not a month. EVula // talk // 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- 30 days is for annual reconfims not new/reactivation requests. Well technically we haven't had enough reactivation requests to have built up a solid history of practice, but I would lump them with "new".--BirgitteSB 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Well, in my entirely unbiased and incredibly fair opinion, I do think reactivation requests should lean more towards new requests than reconfirmation (especially since I lost the bit a year and a half ago). But hey, that's just me. :) (wait, does this make me a guinea pig?) EVula // talk // 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I must have been thinking about reconfirm timing. It takes a month to lose the tools, and only a week to get them back. I have memories of seeing (and probably writing) many notes during confirmation, implying that loss of tools for inactivity required little more then asking for them back. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- That was my thought too, but restricted access policy states fairly clearly that "[a]ny user who has lost access due to inactivity may reapply through the regular processes." Hesperian 23:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I must have been thinking about reconfirm timing. It takes a month to lose the tools, and only a week to get them back. I have memories of seeing (and probably writing) many notes during confirmation, implying that loss of tools for inactivity required little more then asking for them back. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Well, in my entirely unbiased and incredibly fair opinion, I do think reactivation requests should lean more towards new requests than reconfirmation (especially since I lost the bit a year and a half ago). But hey, that's just me. :) (wait, does this make me a guinea pig?) EVula // talk // 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- 30 days is for annual reconfims not new/reactivation requests. Well technically we haven't had enough reactivation requests to have built up a solid history of practice, but I would lump them with "new".--BirgitteSB 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- ...30 days? Yikes, Wikisource:Adminship#Nomination procedure says a week, not a month. EVula // talk // 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
2013-08 confirmation
Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)- Weak support. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support MODCHK (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Maury (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Ineuw talk 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
2014-09 confirmation (unsuccessful)
- Note: Last edit here was on 27 December 2013. Active elsewhere e.g. English Wikipedia. Hesperian 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose — Inactivity is a security risk. Re-confirmation would be easier upon return. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is a furphy about inactivity being a security risk. I have seen no evidence to support such a statement, and from my viewpoint the security aspects between active and inactive accounts is about equal. That said, inactive editors don't need rights, and knowing that our admins are active, and that is the purpose of the review. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose (as above) --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Neutral — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)- Oppose for inactivity.--Jusjih (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Not confirmed due to inactivity. Hesperian 00:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Removal requested[7] and actioned[8]. Hesperian 00:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)