Wikisource

Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Spangineer

< Wikisource:Administrators‎ | Archives
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Spangineer.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Spangineer

2006-11 admin

The following discussion is closed: Appointed

What the heck; I'll self-nom. I've been on Wikisource for a few months now, plugging away at header reformatting, categorization, NSRW images (interacting with Commons a lot), besides adding works here and there. There have been a few times where I've wished I had the admin buttons—it's pretty frustrating to have to sit and watch vandals hit dozens of pages a minute, and also rather annoying to have to bother others to add a category to a protected work. I'd also like to be able to help with deletions. My experience with other Wikimedia projects amounts to over two years on the English Wikipedia (I'm an admin there), plus less consistent levels of involvement on Commons (admin there also) and the Spanish Wikipedia. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2007-12 confirmation

status administrator since 7 December 2006 (unanimous)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions

2009-01 confirmation

status administrator since 7 December 2006 (unanimous)
activity semi-active (contributions, logs)
discussions

Confirmation passed--BirgitteSB 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2010-02 confirmation

Administrator since November 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
Isn't that the truth... =) --Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed--BirgitteSB 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

2011-01 checkuser

The following discussion is closed:

appointed


Spangineer (talk • contribs) • activity • Global

Spangineer has been an administrator at English Wikisource for over four years, and is also an administrator of long-standing at both Commons and Wikipedia. They are a trusted and respected member of this community, exhibiting calmness and good sense and a remarkably hassle-free talk pages. I understant that they have previous experience with IP ranges and blocks which is useful technical skill for the CU role.

While editing behaviour can only be indicative for a CU, if you have ever validated after Spangineer has proofread, you will see that there has been an absolute attention to detail, and when there is different viewpoint in typesetting, Spangineer listens and respects alternate opinions; these are skills that are additionally very useful for a checkuser. I have spoken to Spangineer about the requirements for CU, and I am informed that the reading at meta has been done, though will be double checked. There are no bot accounts, and no other SULs. I commend this nomination to the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I accept; it'd be a pleasure to help out in this way. I do have an understanding of IP ranges, and I have read the relevant meta pages (help and policy) and local policy. My approach with respect to CheckUser, as in other areas, will be to move slowly and carefully, following the rules, and asking questions as necessary. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro/Con

  1. Support as per nom. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Eliyak T·C 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support, excellent choice. Hesperian 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support; easy. And we'll haul John back, too, in due course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support, Seems like a good choice. Jeepday (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Tannertsf (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  10. Support, --JamAKiska (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  11. Support. Jafeluv (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  12. Support (don’t know if I have enough edition on en.WS). VIGNERON (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support. cygnis insignis 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  14. Support - Being a CU takes more than just edits - it requires trust, and trust requires integrity. I am confident in what I see at the moment to believe Spangineer is a person of integrity. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  15. Support.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  16. Support - Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  17. Support John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  18. Support - George Orwell III (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  19. Support - Steve Sanbeg (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  20. Support --Inductiveload—talk/contribs 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  21. Support.--Jusjih (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  22. Support Spangineer has the experience and respect of multiple Wikimedia communities. Plus, sDrewth supports him. Spangineer has my full support. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  23. Support - a trustworthy admin at multiple projects. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  24. Support -- Ken g6 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  25. Support — Ineuw talk 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  26. Support --D.H (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks to all of you! —Spangineer (háblame) 14:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Question - Would you be more open with other CUs at the WMF and change a previous culture of isolation when it comes to cross-wiki sock masters? How would you address previous CU related concerns? If you discover a user running for adminship who has a problematic past with abusive behavior or multiple accounts, how soon would you notify the community? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    I am in favor of working with CUs at other WMF projects to identify "cross-wiki sock masters." However, I would not support automatically "outing" or blocking someone with a "history" elsewhere if he is making positive contributions here. If disruptive behavior or harassment continues under a Wikisource account, those actions should be judged for what they are. If a pattern of abuse develops that suggests that sockpuppetry is involved, CUs should (in concert) use their tools to investigate and report, keeping in line with the privacy policy.
    My opinion regarding the recent drama can be found in a post I made on WS:AN. It addresses your third question: I support revealing controversial history and any ongoing harassment and block circumvention for all admin candidates. But hypotheticals are difficult: each individual case is different, not all information will be available (CU tools may not be used at will), and what constitutes "controversial" may not be unanimously agreed upon. Generally, I would discuss such matters with local CU and bureaucrats, and other WMF CUs, if necessary, and would not act rashly. In the extremely unlikely scenario of me being pushed to, in my judgment, betray the community, I'd instead resign the post. In all cases, I will do my best to act in a way that strengthens the project. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    "check your premises". Jack Merridew 07:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2011-03 confirmation

Administrator since November 2006, Checkuser since February 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer 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) 08:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2012-04 confirmation

Administrator since November 2006, checkuser since February 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.


Confirmed. Hesperian 00:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

2013-05 confirmation

Administrator since November 2006, checkuser since February 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2014-06 confirmation

Administrator since November 2006, checkuser since February 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2015-07 confirmation

Administrator since November 2006, checkuser since February 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2016-08 confirmation

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

2017-09 confirmation

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

2018-10 confirmation

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

2019-11 confirmation

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

2020-12 confirmation

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

2022-01 confirmation (not confirmed)

admin since December 2006 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Spangineer will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
I expect to be in and out. I do find value in having the tools, but I can make do without them. Thanks. Spangineer (háblame) 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal actioned meta:Steward requests/Permissions/2022-02#Spangineer@enwikisource Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Spangineer&oldid=14004748"