Wikisource

Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Theornamentalist

< Wikisource:Administrators‎ | Archives

Theornamentalist edit

2011-04 admin edit

Theornamentalist (talk • contribs) • activity • Global

Theornamentalist has been quietly helping out in the background since 2008, and actively work with the team since 2010. You get used to seeing someone around, and you think they must already be an admin. Which I did, I even left a note to use rollback instead of undo when correcting vandalism. [1]. Well one thing lead to another and Theornamentalist has accepted a nomination for adminship. [2]. A look at SUL shows Wikisource is the place they help out most. Please join me in supporting Theornamentalist for admin at wikisource. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Where are you planning to use tools at Wikisource?
I don't know exactly; I can tell you where I would have used them and would feel the most comfortable using them as a new admin: works that I have gone through that needed updating in several areas typically require deletion. From what I've come across this would mainly be files that are moved to commons, Talk page redirects after moving the title to the correct Main space, and duplicated works. Also, in reverting vandalization, I would benefit from having the rollback feature. It has been de-sysopped at en.wp and I have the right there and am familiar with its functionality. There have been several times where I would have hidden blatantly offensive edits from the history (which has been done typically only minutes after I have seen it by an admin) and subsequently blocked the account or ip. I do not think I will be quick to block for minor "fiddling," however. At en.wp, I have encountered users who have made the silly, annoying edits, like adding their name, and have seen the "vandal" turn to an editor. I once received an email from a vandal, which was not to deride me, and after a few back and forths, the ip was making constructive edits to Transformers articles. They stopped editing after a few days from what I hope was the decision to make an account. Also, in helping with featured works and the related discussions, I would feel comfortable protecting pages if given the tools, and any other decisions for protecting that may come about. Similarly, I am a novice with templates and can lock ones that I may start or work on if I feel they are sensitive.

As for future use? I have dealt quite regularly with deletion discussions (AfD) at en.wp, which are mainly concerned with notability, namely in music and New Jersey. I may become more active in that arena with Proposed Deletions as I become more familiar with the topics, like potential copyright violations. - Theornamentalist 13:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What changes are you looking to impart through use of the tools?
I can't think of many site-wide changes I would make with the tools that I cannot make now, barring the deletions that arise from our transition from PG-like text to proper page-linked works. I would like to see more uniformity between works on somewhat smaller levels (like the current discussion going on in WS:S on portal linking) and in coming to decisions on these matters, I think we could use announcements in the watchlist a little more liberally in order to attract users for input. I also hope to rework formalities in our inclusion standards verbally to reflect what I think is a great opportunity for en.ws; the transcription of sound and movie files for verifiability through our index pages (see here and here), which would require changing the index template. Whether or not this pans out, I can't say, but it would certainly be helpful in verifying speeches by partitioning the sound files. - Theornamentalist 15:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are you going to determine a consensus exists prior to determining/undertaking an action?
In the context of how I've been using it as recent, which has been loosely, I would hope to gain critical feedback from other users, and through discussion come to a conclusion. I did not word that to avoid precision in a definition; it is intentional. Because of the lack of contributors involved in a discussion, I have seen some things be decided on somewhat as follows:
  1. Disagreement between User A and User B.—both continue doing their own thing.
  2. Agreement between User A and User B.—tentatively becomes a decision, referral and then convention
  3. Disagreement between User A and User B, User C enters in and agrees with A.—B may retire their opinion altogether and not pursue any further.

Noting that these cases occur fluidly, it is safe to say that if it is out of "convention," it may not be addressed in such a way that all must give feedback. Of course, some users are unconcerned with the situation or wish not to get involved, and that is their choice to make. This almost leaves some of the same players lcoked for discussions on a scope of topics, when I believe getting as much feedback as possible in an area where there are split "camps" is needed. Two of which I am currently involved in are:
  1. Page width/Characters per line.
  2. Portal link usage in Page space.
I have received a fair amount of feedback for the former, and it is my opinion that there are enough people who seem to think that this is something which should continue into the next step, whatever that may be.

A consensus would mean to me that most support, and with good reason. In my ideal wiki, we would discuss matters on a topic, getting as many people involved (as even if they are uninterested at the moment or uninformed, a site-wide change would effect them) and after the pros and cons have been weighed out per side(s), a formal vote can be had, as it is sometimes hard to determine where everyone stands from a discussion-only forum. I don't see a vote as a bad thing, as long as it is deserving after a well-rounded discussion has taken place. - Theornamentalist 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the sul report above I see this account was created at enwikibooks, 07 July 2008, with the first edit to en.wikipedia at 18 July 2008. Does that report circumscribe your cross-wiki activities since 2008? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Does some excellent work in Page namespace, though there seems to be elements of WP-like expectations in wanting to bring things to a vote as a form of consensus. We all have strong opinions somewhere about something, and we are all entitled to have these opinions, and respecting other people with theirs. Similarly

consensus-building is about working with people, and trying to find the common ground to move to and the commons speed at which to move forward, and parking parts or the whole of an idea. Sometimes things can be glacial progress, and sometimes that just has to be okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appointed--BirgitteSB 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012-05 confirmation edit

The following discussion is closed:

confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

2013-06 confirmation edit

Admin since April 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Theornamentalist will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mpaa (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Support MODCHK (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Support —Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jusjih (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Support — George Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Support —Maury (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014-07 confirmation edit

Admin since April 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Theornamentalist will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
Note: Active according to our formal definition of inactivity; has not edited here in 11 months. Hesperian 01:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015-08 confirmation edit

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

2016-09 confirmation (not confirmed) edit

The following discussion is closed:

Not confirmed. Hesperian 09:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin since April 2011 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Theornamentalist will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
Removal requested.[3] Hesperian 09:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[4] Hesperian 11:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Theornamentalist&oldid=11559557"