Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Dmitrismirnov

2008-08 admin

 * - edit count
 * ruwikisource_p

User:Jayvdb suggested me to nominate myself for the adminship. I am also sysop on Russian Wikisource Участник:Dmitrismirnov and Wikilivres wikilivres:User:Dmitrismirnov. Thanks for your attention Dmitrismirnov 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - you seem to have a good knowledge of Wikisource, having spent many months here and having accrued over 2,500 edits. I think you would make a good administrator, so I support. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Long time user with many good contributions. Will be able to help WS more once he has the tools. FloNight 13:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Yann 13:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, as you're trustworthy and hard working. When making admin actions, please use a summary (eg. when deleting a page), as that's somewhat more important than an edit summary (which you don't use often). —Giggy 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Consistent regular editor.-- Poetlister 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Zyephyrus 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Stratford490 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I'd prefer it if you used edit summaries (there is a simple option in the preferences to force them), but you're obviously a good editor; no worries about you as an admin on this Wikisource in addition to the Russian one. EVula // talk // 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support generally. While I would like to welcome you here to make a bridge with Russian like myself as a bridge with Chinese, please enter edit summaries. This is even more important when using privileged functions for administrators. Thanks.--Jusjih 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I promise, I will... Dmitrismirnov 08:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoted--Birgitte SB  22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2009-09 confirmation

 * Support - quietly active billinghurst (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Prosfilaes (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Great contributions, support. Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - John Vandenberg (chat) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

2010-10 confirmation

 * Keep; active; good use of admin tools. Hesperian 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Consistent activity. George Orwell III (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, no concerns. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; is earning his keep.--Longfellow (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2011-11 confirmation

 * Support, --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - no admin action for over a year. I don't doubt that he will use the tools appropriately, but I question the need to have them if he's not using them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral though no concern, still active, and still has tools at ruWS. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2012-12 confirmation

 * Only 3 admin actions (deletions) ever and none since 2010 ; personally, I'm not a fan of de-sysopping for inactivity, especially where the user is still an active editor  and is actively sysopping elsewhere (logged admin actions yesterday on ru.ws where they are the second most active admin overall), but our policy does provide for inactive sysops to be removed. However, the policy is inconsistent as it states  we are inconsistent as in one place we state a standard for inactivity but also adopt s meta's: under our stated standard ("not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year"), Dmitrismirnov passes, under meta's ("fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months"), they fail. At the same time our actual policy says An inactive user is one who has not edited during the past four months. Inactive users automatically lose their restricted access in their next scheduled confirmation vote unless at least half of the voting community supports continued access. Any user who has lost access due to inactivity may reapply through the regular processes. On that basis they pass (and on that basis the template above is incorrect)  My position on this user is neutral pending further discussion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * support on grounds that no specific issue, though do hear Doug's thoughts, and there is some validity to that — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove -- Doug has enlightened me to the conflict(s) in our policy. The fact we first claim to adopt (& link) to Meta's criteria on this and then go on to state a different criteria than what Meta actually has is currently being discussed on the talk page. Nevertheless, only three total admin actions since 2008 on en.WS means, to me, the User no longer warrants an Admin bit here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See my insertions and links above, my initial reference was to Adminship which said something completely different from Restricted access policy, only the latter is actually policy - so I've removed the conflicting language from WS:Adminship.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Toemato/Tomatoe; both point to Meta and neither mirror what Meta states. Pls. refrain from making more of a mess here - make further comments to the discussion on the talk page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming back with a general statement. In years past we looked to introduce rollbacker status and this was not proceeded with at the community's decision to not strata permissions into a longer hierarchical system. It was seen then that if we trusted people then we should be looking to progress to administrator and the contained rollback +++ components (noting that adminship give access to numbers of rights). The argument proffered now seems to reflect a change in the position that someone who is active (at least as we defined active on one page) now loses access to tools for not using them. That is okay, but probably not appropriate to change the rules during a confirmation. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As a rule I don’t vote for admin auto confirms, but… This is an active user in good standing who has been granted Admin privileges and been in full compliance with the expectations of Wikisource. Jeepday (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Prolonged inactivity may be security risk, but occasional administrator's inactivity is tolerable when significant edits show some activity. Please use edit summaries much more often.--Jusjih (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

2014-01 confirmation

 * —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 16:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Mpaa (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . More edit summaries, please.--Jusjih (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

2015-02 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Also conditional on whether the admin in question is related to the vodka distillery - or not. — Ineuw talk 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * support — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

2016-03 confirmation

 * - BD2412 T 03:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Zyephyrus (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —C. F. 15:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Prosody (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

2017-04 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * sure — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * More edits summaries will be better.--Jusjih (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

2018-05 confirmation

 * BD2412 T 15:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 20:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * --Prosfilaes (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , but more edit summaries would be better.--Jusjih (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

2019-06 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BD2412 T 13:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More edits summaries will be better.--Jusjih (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With about 20 edits made here in each of the past two years, he wouldn't qualify to be admin if he applied today. However, he is still active on the Russian projects and has sysop rights over there as well, so I see no reason to deny him continued access. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * last few admin actions was 8 October 2018 according to Special:Log/Dmitrismirnov, then 11 February 2017, and 15 November 2013. Combine that with barely editing here, and I don't support. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ineuw (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , this user doesn't do any worth contributions related to adminship in the en-WS, all (few!!) admin's actions by him are related to his personal interests only. As of the Russian Wikisourse where he also owns admin's flag: that's in the same way — there he either avoid any admin's actions, or use them for serving to his favourite project(s) only. It seems that he keeps flags only for his personal convenience, not on the general benefit of wikisource(s). Therefore I think this user don't deserve to be restored in the adminship of the English Wikisource. --Nigmont (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Decease
Hesperian 07:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)