Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Cygnis insignis

2009-09 admin

 * - SUL - YAEC

Cygnis insignis has been contributing here since mid-2007. Recently he has become one of our more prolific contributors—a quick look at his more recent contributions indicates that he has made over 1000 edits in the last month. He also does lots of edit patrolling, and I see increasing participation in community discussions such as those on the Scriptorium, the deletion boards, and here.

I work closely with him here a lot of the time, and have always found him to be an extremely congenial collaborator, with sound judgment and often a refreshing perspective on things. I think it will only benefit this project if we give him the extra administrative tools.

Hesperian 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support without concerns. billinghurst (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Helpful and good-natured editor. --Eliyak T · C 05:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Pmlineditor    Talk  15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, also without any concerns. Everything I have seen has been excellent, and it is good to see increased involvement in community discussions. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent contributor. Moondyne (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Yann (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support; no concerns here. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User has been promoted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

2010-09 confirmation

 * support (easy) and for the irony I will use the template :-P   billinghurst  sDrewth  16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha; and in true Cygnis fashion I'll counter with a comment that you actually have to read and think about in order to estimate whether he has my support. Hesperian 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep their rights. Has been a great admin on Wikisource from what I've seen. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A very active contributor.--Longfellow (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support One of the stays of Wikisource. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

2011-10 confirmation

 * Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - contributions in so many areas are the warp against which the rest of us can add the weft to make up the fabric of our work in making a great library. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support--Jusjih (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Regretfully. Cygnis is highly competent technically but is consistently lacking in civility.  They are unable to play well with others and may do fine in pure transcription by themself but this is a wiki and they are an admin and it isn't working well.  Their irrational reaction toward even the mere validation of pages by users they don't get along with is anti-wiki and has no place in the behavior of an admin.  The absolute refusal to acknowledge or explain this behavior to those who ask - even to other admins - is contrary to the good order of the project (e.g. refused to answer User:Inductiveload when questioned about his behavior towards User:Theornamentalist - see Scriptorium/Archives/2011-09).  They frequently revert and when questioned give condescending answers or none at all (e.g. Template talk:Header  Template_talk:Header where Cygnis makes ad hominem attacks against those who disagree based on Cygnis's perception that they (particularly me) don't contribute to content).  I must therefore oppose.  In the event that there are not three opposes, I would still ask that Cygnis explain their announced plan to leave the project - though I will expect no such explanation and expect myself and other opposers to be accused of sophistry and told we have no right to participate because based on our main and pagespace edit history we are process editors - if we get any response at all.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I agree with JeepdaySock, no explanation will suffice. I only meant that even the supporters ought to expect some explanation of Cygnis's statement that he is leaving the community before considering confirming him.  For me it would have no effect.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed one of the links above in my comments linked to the wrong section of the page. The correct section is Template_talk:Header and Cyg's comments begin about half way through in August of this year where Cyg says he removed an instruction.  He proceeded to revert two other admins continuously while refusing to meaningfully discuss his changes to the status quo.  This is also where he accuses us of sophistry and me of being a process editor.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although it has become minor for me, Theornamentalist's comments about CI's interaction with newbies brought back my first interaction with CI. I had been here a short time when I tried to set up some works in the mainspace that were not fully proofread.  I thought I was supposed to (or at least allowed to) set the work up in mainspace as I proofread.  How should I know otherwise, there is no policy that I've ever seen on this (and as I've learned, the whole matter is far from firmly established).  I had done this with several works I was working simultaneously and happened to list them with links in a request for a bot flag as works I would use my bot on.  Cyg deleted them and this discussion resulted.  I do things a bit differently now, but how much easier and less bitey it would have been for Cyg to simply mention this to me and discuss it with me rather than deleting.  Moreover, this was out of process and I believe even more strongly now - an abuse of tools.  There was no such policy, no discussion, not even any notice, and certainly no speedy deletion criterion.  I do not dispute the limited value of the work at that point, I dispute the manner in which it was handled.  I told several other users that Cyg had put such a sour taste in my mouth that I was thinking about leaving the project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the points raised by ResidentScholar: First, re the ligature discussion, you are absolutely right that CI was most civil in that particular discussion. I really had no idea what he was referring to in the line about hoping I didn't take something personally.  But, we were in agreement on that issue.  CI is most civil to those who agree with him.  This discussion was about ligatures and had nothing to do with the Header discussion.Second, re the header discussion, while CI doesn't use the phrase process editor here to refer to me (I actually thought he had used those words so it may have been elsewhere) he refers to process edits and asks multiple times why are you here. He accuses Billinghurst and me of sophistry as a technique to simply dismiss our concerns and his statement Your contribs, Doug, are an excellent of a talk page ghoul scouting around for an argument, but if you make proper and unobjectionable contributions from another account then I apologise is far from polite.  Why do you log into this site? have a serious think about that before worrying about links being 'buried amongst all that grey morass of text' is a personal attack on my editing, without any basis, and suggests that I shouldn't be questioning edits he makes if I don't edit content more.  He goes far beyond arguing against "silence equals consensus" and argues against me and my right to have a position.  He also claims that I am the one making personal attacks and that I At every point . . . have harried me with personalised rejoinders and bury what are succinct and pertinent comments - what?!  CI is everything other than succinct and where his pertinent comments are is beyond me (and apparently several others) - it suggests that I have been uncooperative with him yet the discussions you reference on ligatures indicate otherwise and we had other conversations that were meaningful.  CI is regularly trying to turn the conversation around from "why are you doing this Cyg?" to "why are you asking me about what I did? I did it for a reason - trust me, go transcribe something" - if you don't concede he becomes vicious and says that the questioner is harrying him, harassing him, etc.  I am surprised that you read this differently but maybe my earlier interactions with Cyg at the Scriptorium or when I first arrived - discussed above - made his words look harsher to me than to you.Third, while that discussion read as a whole shows his general attitude to being challenged on his position by others, particularly other admins, it has been his consistent behavior and, in particular, his behavior on Scriptorium and with Theornamentalist that convinced me that he does not acknowledge his own accountability to the community. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I have been struggling with this since the discussion at Scriptorium referenced above by Doug, and attempting to format the words I would write here when this day came. I have no personal issues with Cygnis and in fact have found them to be very helpful on some projects I am working on.  I watched the discussion and participated to some minor degree.  Cygnis is great contributor, but the behavior referenced above indicates to me a gap between the expectations of Adminship and the edits of this editor.  I thank Doug for taking the time to write his statement which I know is not easy, we have a very civil culture here, and everyone tries to do their best to keep it that way.  I differ from Doug in the expectation of an explanation of the events, that time is passed. An new discussion related to that past episode would be driven by events here, and not there, hence devaluing any positive impact in my view. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify; in my belief the vote for admin confirmation is not a popularity contest, I like CI just fine. The question is should CI have the keys to the car (metaphysically speaking). If you have the keys to an automobile or WS there are certain expectations and obligations that need to be met. Using either badly causes negative impacts throughout the community. The fact that CI uses the tools appropriately some or most of the time is no more a defense then driving under the influence of alcohol and telling the judge, but I drove sober the other 6 days of the week. It is a given that there may be extenuating circumstances, what appears to be one thing may actually be another.  Keeping in mind the driving in WS or on the road is a privilege not a right, with it comes with obligations, in this case to provide some explanation for what "appear to be an inexplicable revert".  CI license to drive with special tools is up for renewal. By CI's own admission the tools have been used in what appears to a reckless and inappropriate manor, and valid rational for such activity is wanting.  The expectation is pretty simple for Admin, if the community thinks you will use them appropriately you get extra bells and whistles, if you use them inappropriately you loose the privileged.  CI has had every benefit of the doubt had the roles been reversed between CI (a long established admin) and Theornamentalist (a new admin), this discussion would have not waited until annual renewal time to be started. Had the actions of CI been by a random editor they would have in all likelihood been blocked.  In conclusion CI has shown a disregard for the obligations of Adminship, CI appears to be aware there is a high likelihood that this disregard will result in the loss of privileges, I have a duty and obligation to CI and to all users of WS to hold everyone to the standard of their ability and obligation. The challenges and discussions are painful for all involved, regardless of the out come I hope the CI will remain with the project. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I've felt this way for awhile. As an editor, they are truly profound. Otherwise, they are uncivil, derisive, and uncooperative, and it is unnecessary for them to have the tools; which they have used to rollback pages I validated. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to expand a bit on my opposition. I actually lost interest in working at en.ws (though not entirely) after dealing with CI for many months, in which they reverted or deleted a lot of edits I made. All of which myself or other editors could not understand. There were many instances, most of which I tried to document at the Scriptorium, some of which remain in their archived talk page. The list is somewhat extensive. One day, the conflict between us was written off; that Cygnis simply did not like to edit with me, then, that it was my fault and that I "should know better." I was told to abstain from editing any page that they have ever edited. Then they suggested that I was stalking them, though evidence shows contrary. Other editors began siding with CI, and I believe Hesperian then claimed that they understood why CI was editing the way they were. It just got absolutely ridiculous. I understand that there are standing relationships, politics, politeness and good faith, but every edit CI made against mine was malicious and uncooperative. They are the epitome of what an administator at ws should not be. The "tools" we get can be understood and used properly within editing here for a week, they are not that big of a deal. It is all about the manner of conduct the administrator is supposed to operate in. They have pushed a handful of newcomers and potential great editors away; two that come to mind are SkullofRFBurton and Green Cardemom, who simply gave up after having to combat CI. I've been out of the loop for quite some time, but it seems the only kindness Cygnis bestows is on those who agree with them or elect to learn from them. Knowing how they have treated other editors and myself in the past makes all of the playing nice with a handful of editors seem that much more deceptive of them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We now have three opposes, a vote of confidence is now required in which a majority must support the user for the user to retain admin rights. I presume this discussion simply morphs into the vote of confidence?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I think we need some excellent contributors like Cygnis insignis amidst Wikisource admins, far from sending them away. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. — Excellent editor; rotten communicator. George Orwell III (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Removing access to administrator tools will not stop Cygnis insignis from being 'uncivil, derisive, and uncooperative'. But it will stop him from continuing to perform administrative actions essential to his editorial work. To date, those actions comprise 27 unobjectionable blocks, 2000 unobjectionable deletions, 500 unobjectionable protections, and a dozen regrettable rollbacks. Hesperian 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. But I feel I must first establish my credibility, for it has occurred to me that some might misunderstand my intentions with respect to Cygnis insignis.  I have tried, on my Talk page as well as Cygnis' and elsewhere, to be as clear as possible about where I stand.  For the record (and somewhat embarrassingly), I recently let Billinghurst know via Wikisource email that I had myself, within the last month or so, sent three Wikisource emails to two different Users.  One was to Dovi (with a question about 'Keter'), and two were to Cygnis (who, for the record, has never contacted me outside of this public venue).  I will also say that the contents of those emails are not so private that I would be against their being made public—as I assure you that they are quite benign...  Prior to my sending these emails, I received a WS email by another User who wished to address two things.  I responded to this User via my private email, and for the record again, I would have no problem sharing the contents of my responses publicly.  I will say, however, that I sent a follow-up email to this User for the purpose of assuring them that I had not shared the contents of their initial (or subsequent) email(s) with anyone else (for the thought had occurred to me that it could have appeared that way).  All that said, certain things that I have shared here publicly have been genuine and from the heart, and I hope that they have not been misunderstood or misconstrued.  I have a very difficult time being "anonymous", and while it can be an interesting mental exercise, it is quite a frustrating thing to maintain, is it not??  Maybe just for me... I would like to comment that it is my opinion that Cygnis' statement made on my Talk page about the likelihood of their leaving this community is irrelevant to these "proceedings," and that while everything public is "fair game," that does not necessarily make its introduction prudent. It matters not if Cygnis decides to remain here or leave the community.  He/she is due a fair proceeding either way.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  I can only speak for myself here (for what it's worth): Cygnis' direction has been invaluable to me; and not merely where technical questions are concerned... Much of what I have learned has been indirect—through a recommended book, copying a formatting style, noting certain edits, etc., etc.  All told, it has been an experience I will not soon forget.  I am no lawyer, and I am certainly no judge.  But Cygnis gets a positive vote of confidence from me.  While it may not be worth anything (being primarily subjective in nature!), I am at least thankful that I can cast a vote on the matter.  Apologies for my going on as I am prone to doing! Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I was mentioned above, I just want to stress that I have not discussed this topic privately or publicly with anyone including Londonjackbooks, and that I will not be taking part in the discussion or vote here. In fact, I wasn't even aware that this vote was taking place until now. I don't feel that low activity at this wiki for the past few years justifies such participation on my part. Dovi (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may add: I have compiled all of my emails referred to above into a Word document in chronological order in case they need to be used for any reason.  The only one I couldn't locate (I have let close to 2,000 emails pile up in my Inbox, sadly) is my last one to Cygnis.  But perhaps Cygnis has this one still...?   I will say that it was a farewell of sorts (in the form of a poem)—not knowing when I would last be afforded the opportunity to say farewell.  On that note, Cygnis, if you are "out there", I would like to let you know that I hope that you will stay the course here—but that if you must leave, at least please let me know (and not "sublineally"!) and not just drop off the face of the earth.  Because there were a couple of times there that I literally thought you were dead (I can't explain that); and just so you know, if I am left hanging, I will take that anxiety to my grave (not to place any undue burden on you shoulders or anything!)—me being me... Of course, you don't owe me anything!  Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RE: Doug's & Angr's recent posts: All perception and conjecture.  Your definition of "foreseeable" and mine might be different; so too your definition of "civility."  I thought to give an example (I can but I won't bother) of where I could have had 'good reason' to be offended by comments made by Cygnis with reference to some of my work here—but I chose to give the benefit of the doubt at the time, acted accordingly, all with positive results.  It became a learning experience.  All this assertion of 'rights' keeps reminding me of a passage I read in Dostoyevsky's The Idiot within the last few months... Frankly, it reminds me of my kids in past years arguing over a toy!  You certainly do have 'rights'—but I've said it before—there's a great big WS world out there... We won't always like the approach others take, but we do have a choice as to how we behave, and we should pick our battles wisely. But to my eyes (perception & conjecture on my part), it appears that the battle plan was already drawn up some time ago, and the way paved... For what it's worth, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * &lt;sigh&gt; I just realized that all I want to do here is edit with you guys... I needed/wanted to explain my position where Cygnis is concerned, and I have done that. Back to Wikisourcing for me (but dinner and maybe some cleaning first...) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely that was a typo? You meant "wikisourcery"! :-) Dominic (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know you well enough to know how I should take that. So I'll leave it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking while driving—and piggy-backing on Charles Matthews' comment that there is an "absence of any dispute-resolution structures here on enWS" (true!)—it crossed my mind that if Cygnis' "offense" was so offensive, then why was (I'm gonna use "he") he not punished for it before now? Why were his admin tools not suspended at that time?  Seems to me a certain amount of time has gone by between the offenses and now—where no "offensive" behavior has occurred since... The phrase "statute of limitations" comes to mind... But hey...now it's confirmation time—"let's do what we should have done some time ago and take away his tools", we seem to be saying.  That's why we have such mixed responses here... Something just doesn't add up.  You know what I think?  I think it is simply due to the lack of structure and clear policy where dealing with these matters is concerned.  And lack of structure leads to chaos (and to the exploitation of the "gap").  You know what else I think?  I think Cygnis insignis is just wonkish enough to have shot himself in the foot so that we'd "get" that.  "Self-sacrifice" and "volunteerism" comes to mind (think "Annotations")...  I could be wrong about Cygnis, but I think I'm right about the lack of structure here.  Just some food for thought... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I would normally not vote here in such a matter, not feeling particularly well informed about the issues raised (despite my time on this wiki, I'm not that conversant with such matters). But having looked a bit more at how such things are handled here, I'm going to give CI some "benefit of the doubt", because of the absence of any dispute-resolution structures here on enWS. It is all very well being bureaucracy-lite, but there are times when that attitude risks losing contributors to point-scoring. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the Scriptorium discussion that lasted from April to July, which Doug linked to above. Cygnis persisted in reverting another user's good-faith, constructive edits because he doesn't like that user, and gave coy non-answers when asked to explain himself, so I no longer have sufficient trust in him to support his continued adminship. That he has announced his intention to leave the community "not immediately but in the foreseeable future" doesn't help matters any. Angr 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment—I would like to hear from Cygnis insignis about the statements above as valid concerns of the community and an indication on whether changes are possible or whether there would be no change of approach. CI's edits and efforts in the Page are both worthy and valuable, though as discussed above contributions in other namespaces are, in my opinion, not as helpful. I value and seek alternate opinions; though the reverse does not seem to be the case and often is seems to me that it is considered as an affront or personal attack. This is a community with a shared approach to presenting texts in the modern age in a wiki within WMF, not one that more seems to reflect one person's ideals or the lowest common denominator approach. I would like to find a less divisive approach but that requires a different approach. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment-I wanted to present a comment by CI that seems to contradict Doug's account of CI's behavior, namely where he says: "'Cygnis makes ad hominem attacks against those who disagree based on Cygnis's perception that they (particularly me) don't contribute to content.'" On August 1, 2011, Doug thanked CI for a link and gave his opinion about reproducing ligatures. CI responded with his own opinion about ligatures and having gone on a tangent about his editing philosophy in general, concluded, "'I hope you don't take it personally if I attempt to stifle 'issues' that are very unlikely to be encountered by those who want to share texts they are interested in (or others are likely to be). You have probably noticed I get shitty when people continue to 'make it personal', in whatever way, especially if their mainspace contribs are negligible. Opinions on what is best have more gravity when one actually undertakes the tasks, contrary opinions are cheap when Users spend time on how something should be done, but never actually get around to doing it.'" By appearances, it seems like CI was in that passage frankly confiding his personal opinion to someone whom he regarded as a fellow substantial mainspace contributor, rather than continuing a line of thinking which regards Doug as someone not contributing to content.  Also CI insists here that his opposition to the policies of those that don't contribute to namespace is based on practical grounds rather than personal ones.  I also want to point out in the argument Doug cites later in August, Template_talk:Header, where Doug claims to have been attacked.  I don't see where CI calls you a "process editor" as you claim.  Instead, I just see him argue that your statement "The principle of 'silence equals consensus' is a valid principle" when carried to its conclusion means "That a few people, with a similar disinterest in content, get together on an unwatched page, change the whole scope of the site."  These two responses to the particular subject matter that Doug himself mentions indicate to me that CI wants to go to great lengths, or actually does go to great lengths, to try to avoid negative generalizations about individuals even when he fears their actions endanger the well-being of Wikisource, while Doug maintains the opposite, complaining that CI recklessly insults other users to enforce his differing opinion.  Doug's arguments were part of the basis of the vote of confidence, so I think the disjunction between description and observed behavior deserves some sort of clarification to those spending time trying to determine if CI's conduct needs to be addressed in some way.  ResScholar (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment—I agree that CI's actions in his conflict with User:Theornamentalist did cross the line, specifically the reverting of validated pages and other harmless edits, regardless of the real or imagined transgressions of Theornamentalist before the conflict had reached that point. Beyond that the criticism seems to be that he has firm opinions on what site policy should be, and that he argues these opinions aggressively—not ideal in an admin to be sure, but nothing I've seen (outside of the mentioned conflict) has been alarming.  I happen to agree with CI's points in User:Doug's link, if not necessarily with how he made them. His actions wrt Theornamentalist do demand some form of sanction, and he should probably also work on his conflict management skills, however in light of his contributions to the site, stripping of admin status seems excessive in my opinion.--T. Mazzei (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I have been seriously weighing this proposal since it came to my attention, and carefully re-read the comments made here. The most difficult part of commenting is to redact my views and experience and stay relevant to the issue of CI's adminship. Wikimedia concept of volunteer participation is not compatible with CI's aggressive threats and actions, and his behaviour has the effect of souring one's desire to contribute to Wikisource. I also strongly disagree that good technical editorship is a criteria for the position of administrator, as one has nothing to do with the other.  It seems that in CI's world, as in the worlds of the venerable Jorge de Burgos from The Name of the Rose, and father Roland Guérin de Vaux of the Dead Sea Scrolls fame, no other view is permitted, other than his own.  Finally, it also occurred to me that his actions may be indicative of his lack of desire to continue and carry the responsibility of adminship.— Ineuw talk 02:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment— Just checking in here as I have been lately reassessing whether or not I actually want to leave this community... Doug's Ineuw's comment above with regard to "CI's world" struck me... We each are in our own "worlds", are we not? Are we not permitted to share similar views with others?  Doing so doesn't make us inherently biased, but your comment would make others believe that.  I have always liked the view taken by James Fenimore Cooper in The American Democrat (1838, I think) that "No freeman, who really loves liberty, and who has a just perception of its dignity, character, action and objects, will ever become a mere party man. He may have his preferences as to measures and men, may act in concert with those who think with himself, on occasions that require concert, but it will be his earnest endeavour to hold himself a free agent, and most of all to keep his mind untrammelled by the prejudices, frauds, and tyrranny [sic] of factions."  That is one of my favorite quotations, and I try to live by it.  I actually never checked to see if the book was hosted here... Maybe I will...?  Anyway, while we may act in concert with other men,—that is a different thing than trying to influence other men.  Something that I have NEVER seen Cygnis try and do.  Cygnis is "all about" faithfulness to the original text.  Just my two cents again, and an apology for dishing it out ad nauseam! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC) [In addition... I also wanted to add that we would all have to be perfect in order to live up to your apparent standards, Doug Ineuw (my opinion)... None of us would have a job if that were the case...either here or in the 'real world'.  My husband would have left me long ago if perfection was the standard in our marriage.  You have to look at the trends of behavior, and I do not believe that Cygnis trends toward the negative, but rather the opposite (my opinion). Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)]  Oh—and with regard to "good technical editorship" not being "a criteria for the position of administrator"... I have to disagree!  Faithfulness to original text is what we are supposed to be about here (or so I thought), and it can only be a benefit to this community to have admins who subscribe to such a dedication to attention to detail and encourage that practice with so-called "newbies." Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-reading some of these comments, I just noticed above that I had mistaken Ineuw for Doug! I'll fix it, sorry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2011


 * Oppose I find it impossible to support, at least as of now, as there is no indication that Cygnis wishes to continue as an administrator, or to engage with the concerns that have been raised above. This seems similar to some of the behavior described: taking actions at odds with other editors, and then declining to explain or discuss his actions. In the end, it seems to me that this kind of behavior may be acceptable for a day-to-day editor (provided it is more the exception than the rule) -- it's regrettable but not uncommon that some people just prefer not to work with other people. But, I don't think someone in a position of trust should behave that way. I am generally of the school that being an admin is "no big deal," however, I do think that increased editorial abilities carry some small measure of responsibility to be more communicative. -Pete (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I regret leaving this out before: on a personal level, I have found Cygnis to be very helpful and congenial; his guidance has helped me learn the complex workings of this site, and I have enjoyed interacting with him. -Pete (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my comment to an oppose vote, regretfully. I looked at the policy that governs this process, which essentially says that once the "vote of confidence" in an existing admin is triggered by 3 opposes on annual review, a majority of support votes is required to retain the admin tools.
 * I think this is probably the wrong process. In the present scenario, if I'm counting correctly, with my vote there are 7 "supports" and 7 "opposes." However, I believe this is a good illustration of why a simple majority is not the right measure. A number of people question the candidate's suitability for the role, with clearly articulated reasons; and the candidate has declined the opportunity to respond substantively to these concerns. To my thinking, this is a clear case where the tools should be revoked; for all we know, Cygnis does not even want to remain an admin, as he has never stated his desire in this discussion. In the future, I think it might be worthwhile to redesign the decision-making process, either to permit some discretion on the part of the closing bureaucrat, or to require that the candidate assert his or her interest in the tools and/or engagement on substantive criticisms, or to lower the threshold percentage of oppose votes,or perhaps something else.
 * All that said, I'd like to reiterate that I greatly appreciate the help Cygnis has given me here on Wikisource, and am impressed by his contributions to the site. Another problem I see with the present process is that it needlessly subjects a good faith contributor to extensive negative commentary on his behavior. This does not seem humane or civil. If the process could have been concluded earlier -- say, by revoking the tools due to a lack of interest on the part of the candidate -- I think it would have been a much more congenial process. -Pete (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, regretfully, due to the behaviour towards other users of the site. The misuse of admin tools in reverting clearly good faith edits, even after concerns were raised was bad enough, but the silence or cryptic half-replies when asked why is certainly not acceptable for an administrator. I have since found the same pattern of silent reversion followed by mysterious and acid reasoning has existed since January 2010, where a bizarre and unspoken claim of a "trump card" was used to try to silence a dissenting contributor.


 * Even worse is the attacking of contributors, calling them "tyre-kickers", belittling "process editors" and those who often edit in the auxiliary namespaces, with the unspoken implication that a high main/pagespace edit count is all that really matters. The un-discussed extension of established policy during an ongoing related discussion in which CI was very vocal is also cause for concern to me. It is not OK, in my mind, to move the policy under the feet of other users without at least mentioning it in the current discussion.


 * It's a huge shame that this discussion is necessary, but the 99% of good edits is very easily outweighed by the 1% of bad ones, especially for an admin. I was tempted to agree with T. Mazzei that removal of admin tools is not an appropriate response, and with Hesperian that removal of the tools would not prevent CI being uncivil in discussions. However what are admin tools if not a mark of trust by other editors that the admin can perform the duties with integrity? Allowing an editor to be combatative and vulgar while remaining among the trusted elite of the site does not send the right message. If CI wishes to go overboard in discussions, that is his/her lookout, and should be dealt with, but we should not allow it to appear sanctioned by the position currently held. I would hazard a guess that CI's position as an admin has had a chilling effect on previous discussions on this topic, as other users are unwilling to jump into a fight with a user that is under the mantle of "The Administrators" and cause the unpleasantness we now see here. The general lack of response to a two-month plea from a wronged (in my opinion) user for help illustrates this nicely. This admin-biting-others behaviour is the single biggest criticism of en.Wikipedia by unhappy users and we would do well to avoid allowing any more of it (or giving the impression of tolerance of it) over here.


 * I would also like to add that there is great evidence of CI's attention to detail, proofreading stamina, patience and tolerance of a subset of editors and general effectiveness all over Wikisource, but I do not think the proportionally rare (but not uncommon in absolute terms) poorly-judged edits are compatible with continued adminship, without at least an acknowledgment by CI of the inappropriateness of this behaviour and a commitment to work peaceably with all good faith editors of Wikisource.


 * I apologise for the length of this post and the lateness. I had hoped that there would be (as Pete put it) a more humane way to have this discussion, but it seems it is not forthcoming. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  02:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment On the other hand, I do not feel that the whisperings of a future sudden departure from Wikisource count against CI, as anyone is allowed to stop editing at any time. Furthermore, we do not know the reasoning behind it and cannot cast judgement. If CI wishes to disappear one day, he is perfectly entitled to—he is not required to say anything, even as an administrator, though an announcement would be appreciated in that case to simplify the closure of the next confirmation. While many of us would like to know the reason for the vanishing of a user, we do not have a right to it, and should not insinuate that it can be used to add bulk to an "oppose" vote here.
 * A stated lack of current desire to be an admin would be a very good reason to fail a confirmation, but I don't think that can be said to be the case since CI is still using his tools regularly. Mere refusal to participate in this confirmation is not equivalent to saying "I no longer wish to be an admin", though the result could be the same. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  03:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose though with many hesitations. I added a comment with questions (above 7 Oct) and had hoped that Cygnis would have addressed such comments, or an indication in how those who have difficulties with the style used may have been heard, however, there has been silence. The comments from some, including administrators, that they don't edit here due to their interactions with CI and their use of tools is very disconcerting and weighs on my decision.  I hear and note Hesperian's comments, though that is not a convincing argument to not act when a significant part of the community does not think that they are neither being listened to nor respected. I disagree with Charles's comments about bureaucracy-light being to fault as one has to exhibit that an opposite opinion can even exist and should not be seen to be disregarded out of hand. I clearly want to differentiate this opinion from my highest respect for CI's ability to proofread and to a quality product, I just believe that there is a spectrum of opinions/approaches on what is Wikisource and how Wikisource can achieve things, and an open mind and tolerance is required to other approaches, even when these frustrate me.— billinghurst  sDrewth  08:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment— While I did state on 18 October that "You will hear no more from me in this Wikicommunity in any way, shape, or form"... perhaps I can plead temporary insanity as a defense for speaking now, for I came pretty close to it! I've had to wrestle with whether to disclose the contents of an email exchange between myself and Doug that took place beginning August 22.  Doug emailed me about two things: 1) He wondered why I was not already an admin, and that if I considered it, he would nominate me. 2) He hoped I would "turn away" from Cygnis' "position," etc. with regard to the disagreements going on at that time between Doug, Cygnis, Theornamentalist, and perhaps Billinghurst (whom he also mentioned as having been "assaulted" insulted by Cygnis [apologies for the misquote; I was referring to "personal attacks", and came away with "assaulted" instead—erringly (see Doug's actual email that he posted to WS]).  While I did not initially feel that the purpose of Doug's email was to influence me away from Cygnis' "position" with the lure ("carrot") of adminship, I started to wonder later if that wasn't the case.  Now, it's Doug's word against my intuition, and all I have is my intuition supported by some random dialogue (involving Doug, Theornamentalist & Cygnis primarily) on a myriad of Talk pages here at WS.  Perhaps what alarmed me most was when my Google Docs account was tampered with.  I had saved my email exchanges as a file for personal reference, only to find that the file had been deleted.  This got me a wee bit paranoid... Doug might be completely innocent of trying to influence my "loyalties" (my loyalties, by the way, are only to my own principles—and not to any particular User(s).), and if so, I am very sorry to have brought any of this up.  I realize I've opened up a can of worms here, and for someone who dislikes conflict, I sure know how to create it!—or at least fan the flames... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question -- Back up a bit LJB and please clarify this last comment. Are you saying that you feel that you were lobbied for support in this matter weeks prior to the actual reconfirmation in return for a nomination as Admin in return? I hope that I've read the above wrong but that is what I'm coming away without the benefit of more clarification. :( George Orwell III (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on LJB's talk page. If anyone needs further clarification please let me know. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * George, that is what I am trying to figure out... although I am probably going about it the wrong way. One thing (admin) was likely not contingent upon another thing ("turn[ing] away" from Cygnis' "position"), but I do feel that Doug was attempting to influence me with regard to Cygnis...which would be inappropriate in my book (even though I myself obviously am not represent at ing a very stellar example of appropriate behavior!).  I owe Doug a response on my Talk page, and that is where I will try to work all this out.  Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Breathe. It seems a lot like perceptions, expectations and misconceptions, nor what I would call the most brilliant or best considered email. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the replies. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support—I considered all the arguments here carefully, but I am forced to acknowledge to myself that those opposing Cygnis' reconfirmation have not proven their case. I see so many descriptions of what they don't like about Cygnis' conduct, but a paucity of examples that match the descriptions.  That being said, I feel that some of the descriptions are made by reliable individuals, so I will not move for extraordinary steps to rehear and examine these oppositions on the administrative noticeboard.  I would have liked to do so here, but ill health has prevented me from engaging with these descriptions in the time allotted.
 * I will say one thing about Cygnis' conduct, or rather my response to it. When he doesn't post here (or even respond in the way some would have liked), it could be for a variety of reasons and without evidence I am not willing to prejudge them.  We can consider the right to not be compelled to incriminate oneself.  But it's also true that sometimes I have trouble understanding his descriptions and explanations of what he's doing, if only because they're incomplete.  This makes reconciling between his own arguments and those that object to his conduct a lengthy process.  And yet I'm forced to ask myself, have those who wish to oppose Cygnis for whatever reason exploited this tendency?
 * So it could go either way in my eyes: Cygnis being scrupulous towards his own conduct to the point of non-communication, or his opponents resenting not having a "handle" on Cygnis to persuade him to change his mind through engagement, so resorting to disparaging that very quality (the scrupulosity) as something sinister.
 * That is, I can oppose some arguments in support of Cygnis and oppose some against him. But I don't know where to lay blame for the protraction of the argumentative process.  Therefore, I will not move to extend the length of this vote of confidence either.
 * Instead I will extend a hand to Cygnis, and after the vote of confidence is over to help him to the degree I am able, if he wishes, to present the parts of his side of story that he finds himself unable to present, or found himself unable at the vote of confidence. This can be on the Administrative Noticeboard or even at a future confirmation hearing, should he be nominated again.ResScholar (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose--it's hard, but I have a distinct problem with people who can't accept that others are working in their own fashion, and who make loud noises about leaving. I don't think those behaviors are worthy of an admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so "loud", actually... Cygnis merely made a brief mention of his leaving the community in the "foreseeable future" on my Talk page back in August while discussing a book recommendation... Unless I have overlooked other incidences, the only other mention about Cygnis' "leaving" was not brought about by Cygnis, but by another two other users above who referenced the August conversation between me and Cygnis.  Please correct me if I'm wrong... (Cygnis could have mentioned it to me in an email, but he/she has never chosen to communicate with me that way.) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No Confidence in Adminship Seven editors expressed confidence in Cygnis continuing as an administrator while ten lacked such confidence. While their work on texts was highly praised, there seemed to be two main concerns with Cygnis' performance as an admin in the past year. The more direct issue raised was that they have not explained their actions at the level desired of administrators when questioned. The other major issue discussed was that Cygnis' manner of addressing those they disagreed with in general discussions was rated poor. The concern here was that having an administrator who rates poorly in this area is indirectly harmful to collaborative spirit of the project. Cygnis did not publicly address these concerns as part of this vote of confidence.--Birgitte SB  18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rights removed. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

2021-05 nomination


I remember him to be a conscientious admin when I started here, way back when the Biblical flood waters receded. I am glad that he returned, and consider his experience and contributions to be invaluable.— Ineuw (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * asked me a little while ago, I said I'd accept his nomination. Cheers, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [And I promise to use preview, sorry for misspelling ] CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * adding admin confirmation as this user was an admin previously, and using that template is the easiest way to add links to those conversations of the time. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Languageseeker (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a discussion with at their talk, ending with a curt question because it was a baffling response. I opened a discussion at proposed deletions, and should say now that I will move that any similar creation – part of each page saved out using a failed attempt at using the match-and-split bot with an unwillingness to make it useful to a proofreader – ought to be grounds for speedy deletion and start again. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that issue at all. I'm fine with a discussion of the value of PGDP text. I'm opposed because of your recent interaction with Hihelio. Languageseeker (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the below. --Xover (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC) This user lost their bit due to a failed vote of confidence in 2011, a vote in which they refused to participate or address any of the concerns raised by the community. The vote of confidence was triggered partly as a result of the user making controversial reverts and other actions and refusing to answer direct questions about their reasoning. I am surprised to see them nominated for admin without any attempts to address or even acknowledge this history. I have some more recent concerns I would need to see illuminated before making up my mind, but I am not willing to even entertain the notion until the history is addressed. --Xover (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After a recent discussion with I tried to discover why the name was familiar. A glance at their contributions elsewhere reminded me, we both had something say in an incident: my hand become trembling. I took some time to consider how I felt about this and resolved to avoid them as much as possible, as I did when confronted by others involved for actions and comments I contributed. I'm still considering whether that is enough. I feel certain that Xover would know what I am referring, and that satisfying curiosity about what the incident was here has little to do with wikisource content, but I'm willing to continue discussions at meta or preferably wikipedia. At this stage I am willing to continue on at this project and avoid this user as far as is politely possible. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cygnis insignis: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to. If you have an issue with my contributions on another project then please bring it up with me on that project. If you have an issue with my contributions on this project then please bring it up with me here. In either case it belongs not in this particular discussion and you have failed to address the issue I raised that bears on your nomination for admin. Xover (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please mate, I'm not judging, I fled a situation at wikipedia with nausea and fear. I unequivocally surrended! Ask me there if it affects things here, although it will me vulnerable to some dangerous people. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither my memory nor the editor interaction analyser reveals that we have interacted directly in connection with w:WP:FRAMBAN (or much of anywhere else on enWP, for that matter). In any case, if I ever bring up an issue from a different project that bears on a discussion here I will point it out explicitly. But so far I have only asked you to address your own history as an admin here, on this project, and the removal of your bit by this community. Xover (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the time taken to reply a factor, and was it necessary to highlight the discussion for the hard of thinking? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Time is a factor only in the sense that if you want to persuade me to support your nomination you will need to respond at some point before this discussion is closed. So far you have just indicated an unwillingness to do so, because I was the one that asked the question, and implied that we have had some kind of conflict on another project of which I am unaware and which you have so far declined to specify (both here and on whatever other project is relevant). In fact, in a discussion of your nomination for admin, the thrust of your contributions has been markedly focussed on me rather than your own suitability for the role. Xover (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to persuade you to support me. You opened the discussion and I thought it appropriate to respond. Is an explanation of why I want to avoid interacting with you at this site required? It is nothing personal, I assure you. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not at all; although that would seem to be the more productive approach. Particularly as you opened the discussion, by way of Ineuw. Xover (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh! a qualification about this exceptional circumstance: If anyone else has similar concern to any other matter raised by Xover I am happy to discuss them here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, see, the problem is that this does not appear to be an "exceptional circumstance": you made the same kind of claim in the conflict that ended with your failed vote of confidence, and then too you appeared to apply that justification for refusing or avoiding answering direct questions about your actions, including from entirely uninvolved community members. When a former admin, who had the bit removed as a result of losing the community's confidence, is nominated again, acknowledging and addressing that history is a very low bar. Succinctly: given you lost the community's confidence last time, why should we now give it to you? Xover (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

2021-10 nomination
• previous discussions

I am renominating Cygnis insignis for administratorship. This has been my intent since my last effort failed. These missed four months were only because life got in the way of Wikisource. So, I ask to please read this post.

The community's rejection of my original nomination, caught me by surprise. Since I was the other person (Ineuw vs. Cygnis insignis) that triggered his departure. (I don't remember if he resigned or his adminship was revoked, and it's not important. I am not interested in fishing through the archives to find out, and I go by what I remember, because I occasionally thought about it).

Thus, I feel obliged to clarify that for many years after it happened (in the winter of 2010 ?), I realized that he was right, and I was definitely wrong. He was only wrong on how he addressed the issue by taking the changes personally, and applying his strict rules to my editing.

At the time, I just completed proofreading the first volume of and was debating whether I should commit to proofreading the complete  project. So, I hopped around between pages to get a feel for what it would be like, and how can I speed up the process and marked the visited pages incorrectly.

The issue related to our disagreement were resolved later by the community. The only ones I remember being there at the time were billinghurst and Hrishikes, Hesperian so I don't know who still is active and remembers what happened.

But, I ask the community to approve a longtime contributor and a valuable member of the community, even if he is at times a bit orthodox. :) — Ineuw (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * — I was not present here in 2010. That said, I have no personal issue with this user's adminship, but issues were raised in the last nomination discussion by other users, which this user did not clarify. That matter needs to be addressed first, before we move forward with this current nomination. Hrishikes (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The issues were never addressed directly in the 2010 original, but I can elaborate. In general, I marked incomplete editing as proofread, perhaps hundreds over the course of weeks, and when he noticed that the changes were minimal, he got very upset with me in an ungentlemanly manner, and I reacted derisively. From then on, all I remember that he left, but nothing in between.


 * My ultimate take was that people can imagine anything when sitting alone in front of a computer screen for hours. Myself committed exactly the same offense when years later I admonished another user in a similar manner. We seem to take our work as our own, and this was wrong.


 * Also, please re-read the first part for additional clarification. — Ineuw (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that you can read the issues at Administrators/Archives/Cygnis insignis which is also linked in the nominate template. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The nominated user has also made claims about me and when asked to substantiate them has not, though doubled down on user talk pages. I will not take to being casually libelled. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the accusations appear to unfortunately be somewhat habitual behavior, and should not be casually ignored in an admin nomination. on that alone. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Languageseeker (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate his work on Wikisource more than his behavior, and I prefer him to go on being in our Community. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC).


 * Oppose. What? Certainly not. His lack of interest in discussion and frequent personal attacks (1 and 2 quite recently) are unbecoming of an editor, least of an administrator. Also, — Ineuw, have you seen this editor’s recent activity? If you have, and approve of it, that is quite worrisome. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the archive, nor did I pay attention to his activities. Apologize for wasting everyone's precious time. This is on me, and I withdraw the nomination.— Ineuw (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * These 1, 2, 3 are inappropriate (and you have been warned before about edit-warring). Once a properly formed nomination discussion has been opened it should only be archived by the `crats, and it should under no circumstances be removed without being properly archived. If you, for whatever reason, would like to have it archived early you or the nominator can indicate the withdrawal of the nomination (as the nominator has already done) and then request that the `crats archive it immediately. I can't speak on their behalf but I would imagine they might be inclined to assent to such a request under these circumstances. --Xover (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Xover Were you aware of what I mentioned below? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not asked, I'm hoping that all concerned simply failed to note that fact, nor was I advised of these discussions being resurrected. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If what you mean by that is that you didn't expect your past misconduct to be brought up in an admin discussion by the opposition, I really don't know what to tell you there. The behavior referenced here was against core WMF policy, and much of it was on top of that immoral. These many recent instances of blatant personal attacks and edit warring were never even followed by an apology and the behavior has continued despite multiple attempts by editors and admins to address said behavior. I don't regret mentioning these things in my opposing vote, as I think these are perfectly sound reasons not to trust someone with the bit. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are entirely correct. At least for my own part I merely assumed you were aware of and had accepted the nomination—since it was so soon after and by the same nominator as the previous nomination (which you did accept)—but we all should have made sure there was explicit acceptance. You have my unreserved apology for that. Nominating someone without asking them first is a bit presumptous. Doing so in this case, when the last nomination was controversial, was really poor form. There was no reason to assume it would be less controversial this time, and if CI didn't even want the nomination now then you've subjected them to a very public discussion of their merits to no purpose and possibly without them even being aware of it. Please take more care in future. Under the circumstances I am going to request that this be archived early. The nomination was improper (not accepted by the nominee), has now been withdrawn, and must be, at the very least, stressful for the nominee. At least for my own part I can see no constructive purpose to keeping it open any longer. --Xover (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ BD2412  T 17:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)