Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Pathoschild.
See current discussion or the archives index.

2006-01 admin

I request administrator access here. Although I'm relatively new to Wikisource, I think my adminship on the English Wikipedia (see my request on w:en) speaks for my good faith, and I'm well-aware of the policies and guidelines. In case Wikisourcers are as editcountitistic as Wikipedians, see my results with Kate's tool. :) I'm interested in adminship for the ability to modify Wikisource's infrastructure (particularly deleting redirects and merging edit histories), as well as for policy enforcement and vandalfighting, although there seems to be very little vandalism on Wikisource. —Pathoschild 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. You've done fantastic work here initializing action to finally get our infrastructure set up. Fine choice for adminship.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support You have been quite a workhorse since becoming active over here, and really take the time to listen and learn the particulars of this project. And then you follow up with extremely high quality work. --BirgitteSB 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't understand a lot of wshat you do but its fantastic!!! Apwoolrich 08:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Your edit counts look acceptable to me.--Jusjih 10:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Go for it! Dovi 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Nice work on the help pages. Though recent your work here & previously on wikipedia seems to justify adminship. AllanHainey 13:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 TalkContact 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 TalkContact 13:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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 TalkContact 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)


  1. Absolutely. Essjay TalkContact 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Yes AllanHainey 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support. Dovi 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Definitely.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support --BirgitteSB 17:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support whole-heartedly. Apwoolrich 18:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support --Politicaljunkie 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support' I 'know' Pathoschild from the en wikipedia≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Of course.--Shanel 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Yann 17:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - Danny 02:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - illy 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support--Jusjih 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support If Wikibooks can't have somebody with this access, you might as well get the votes. --Robert Horning 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support ---Kernigh 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - Antireconciler 21:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support – ABCD 15:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - Bookofjude 00:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]




2007-02 confirmation

Confirmed. Shanel 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2008-03 confirmation

2008-03 checkuser

The following discussion was for two candidates (including Jayvdb), and split for the archive.

The previous request for Checkuser here on the English Wikisource ended unsuccessfully in April 2006 when it was pruned from meta and then Wikisource. It was covered in Wikisource:News/2006-04-19/Local_CheckUser_status_in_doubt.

Foremost in my mind as the reason to have local Checkusers is to allow checks to be run where there are unusual circumstances. For example, I have just unblocked What467 (talkcontribs) when there was a suspicious Zzzzz356 (talkcontribs) also active and doing similar page blanking. I have had to give the benefit of the doubt, despite my doubts, because it isnt worth requesting a meta CU.

Also worth considering is the aspect that without a local checkuser, someone considering using two accounts to manipulate a situation will have less reason to think they will be caught. Having a checkuser who is active in the community will be preventative.

Also worth noting, Lar commented on local CU at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Checkuser_request_on_en:wp_which_included_en:ws, and English Wikibooks (who was also unsuccessful at the same time as Wikisource) have since been successful and now have four local CU. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to be successful, the requirements at m:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser are two candidates with at least 25 approvals. We have enough active users, and I hope at least one other administrator will join this request. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A note for future reference: there are some very good policy ideas in a recent discussion on Checkuser-l (checkusers-only). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:34:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any public discussion about a local checkuser policy yet? The most important things are already regulated by the Meta checkuser policy. But I'd like to see some more details defined, in particular:
  • What's the term of office for a checkuser, and what are the formalities of re-election?
  • How do they account for their actions? For example, once a case is closed, will they notify the editors on whose accounts a checkuser was performed?
--GrafZahl (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have started a draft Wikisource:CheckUser policy so we can all work on this, and discuss it on the talk page. Until a local policy is adopted by a community vote, the meta policy would be in effect (coupled with common sense). That said, if the local policy is making good progress towards adoption, I think the tools shouldnt be used until it is adopted (unless there were exception circumstances that required it). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser policy on Meta will still be in effect after we create a local policy; we can expand upon that policy, but not override it. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:09:43, 05 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the draft.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you haven't seen it, I drafted the restricted access policy with John's input. That policy is being considered at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Restricted access policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:45:49, 07 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff of a post on Meta to m:Steward requests/Permissions, where I have asked that CU access be granted once Jayvdb has identified to the foundation (unless he has already). The requisite 25 votes have been received in both cases. Seems reasonable to start the wheels turning on granting access, even if the policy is not completely nailed down. I have absolute trust in both of these users to abide in spirit. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an active administrator on Wikisource, and I have experience with checking users as a checkuser on MetaWiki and a steward (see my local administrator, meta CheckUser, and steward elections). I discussed with jayvdb in #wikisource and we agreed on a few ways to ensure transparency (some ideas included requiring public requests and reconfirmation). As such, I nominate myself for the second checkuser required by the checkuser policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:45:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Support or Shanel will kill me :) Well if we can't trust our stewards to behave properly, who can we trust? Pathoschild has been a model user here, and has a full understanding of the role of checkusers. —Dark (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oh good, the armtwisting worked! Support of course, since now no one can twist my arm. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: Pathoschild stood for CU before. See Wikisource:Administrators/Archives#CheckUser_2006-03_.28failed.29. There is additional background in this news article Wikisource:News/2006-03-30/Voting begins on two for CheckUser access. The vote failed although it had 18 supports and no opposes or (in my view) significant concerns raised, because there is a strict requirement for 25 support votes, as outlined here Wikisource:News/2006-04-19/Local CheckUser status in doubt. Let's make sure that does not happen again this time if possible, eh? Note that it is my personal interpretation that there is not a particular time limit to get to 25 support votes, but it would be good to get there within two weeks if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support. Tarmstro99 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support - absolutely - Epousesquecido 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Yann 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support as policy is in works.--BirgitteSB 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support SQLQuery me! 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Dbachmann 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support per my support on his RfA. On time limits, we take the view on Wikiquote that there are none.--Poetlister 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Cowardly Lion 22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support -Steve Sanbeg 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Has a long record of good work for this and other Foundation projects. FloNight 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. I don't want Shanel to kill anybody :). Pathoschild is very trustworthy indeed.- --Zephyrus 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support.Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support. Stifle 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support --Cato 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support - Suicidalhamster 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support. Hesperian 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support - Politicaljunkie 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Greeves (talk contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support --Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support--Jusjih 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support as a local CU policy is in the process of creation.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support. #24 too...good luck! Giggy\talk 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support #25 Moondyne 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support, long standing commitment to the project makes Pathoschild an ideal person for the role. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009-04 confirmation

Administrator since 3 February 2006 by unanimous election (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Pathoschild will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2010-05 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:
Administrator since January 2006; Checkuser since March 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Pathoschild will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2011-06 confirmation

admin since Jan 2006 & checkuser since March 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Pathoschild will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

Confirmed--BirgitteSB 16:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012-07 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:
admin since Jan 2006, checkuser since March 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Pathoschild will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2013-08 confirmation

admin since Jan 2006, checkuser since March 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Pathoschild will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2013-09 checkuser resignation

I've removed my checkuser flag due to inactivity. Unfortunately I don't have as much free time as I once had — so I'll still lurk, but more quietly and with fewer flags. :) —Pathoschild 05:21:10, 01 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger that, and thanks for five years valuable service. Hesperian 08:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more doll (lots of dolls)
Robot dolls
Robot dolls
for Pathosbot's next birthday, and many many many thanks to you Pathoschild, here, in Wikilivres, and everywhere. --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What they said! Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same here. All the best. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014-04 admin resignation

Hi! Since I'm no longer active on-wiki, I've requested the removal of my admin flags. I'll continue lurking and maybe take up editing again sometime. :) —Pathoschild 02:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for many years of great service to the project, Pathoschild. You'll always be a Wikisourcerer! Hesperian 05:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, as Hesperian states, thank you Pathoschild for your many years of service to en.wikisource and other wiki areas you have worked on. The future will be a better future because of what you have done. From the realm of bookworms and silverfish, Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for all the contributions, and please come back soon. — Ineuw talk 07:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for everything you have done, and all the best in your future endeavours. Hope to see you around sometime. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 08:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for all that you have done for Wikisource over the years and please come back whenever you get the urge.

    PLEASE take the time out to review and/or revise any of the tools and/or scripts you were once involved in developing here before you go - there is a good chance much of it is still in use by many but little has been done in the way of keeping them current/relevent. TIA. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Good luck in your IRL activities, Pathoschild; thank you for so solid building here during many years; you'll not be forgotten. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]