Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/ResidentScholar

2008-01 admin


Ok, I know this is a bit odd, and that there are a few minor technical difficulties to overcome before this is possible, but damnit, this person (whoever it is) is a keeper, and cares about the quality of our project.

On the content side of things, User216 has consistently progressed on a very large work History of the United States 1801-09, and has worked on many others such as An Essay Towards a Theory of Art, The Poetical Works of William Cowper, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Electra, Philoctetes and others.

What is more impressive is that User216 has 217 edits to the Wikisource namespace, of a total of 1500+ edits. These mostly consist of identification and discussion of copyright violations and deletion proposals. While not all of them have been successful, many have been found to be undesirable, and User216 is quick to acknowledge when there is a suitable reason to keep. In addition User216 takes the time to notify the user when that is appropriate.   I think it is safe to trust User216 to close WS:COPYVIO and WS:PD based on consensus within the legal limitations.

Another example of User216's Wikisource namespace contribs is the expansion of Ancient Rome. John Vandenberg 14:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * John has my thanks for the hospitality expressed in his nomination of me as administrator of the project. I accept the nomination with the understanding that my role would be limited, at least for now, to increased responsibilities in what I have been assisting in doing in the past, namely to closing the WS:COPYVIO discussions in which I have before participated in and moving them to Wikilivres if necessary.  (and WS:PD discussions also if that would be helpful).  In recent days in the course of rechecking the labeling of the license status of the modern era authors (I'm up to the Gs), I have discovered possible copyvios at a rate of about one work for every two letters of the alphabet, if that can give any indication of the future volume of such discussions.  Another role I see users and admins doing is patrolling edits.  I would be willing to learn about that as well, but as far as shaping policy and that sort of thing, I have personal limitations that would prevent regular attendance on long-term projects, and you would have to depend on good fortune for my ability to help in those areas.  If that changes, we can discuss increasing my role.


 * Relating to shaping policy, and so there's no surprises, I do have a minor policy suggestion about the main index that I haven't broached because of the smallness of the role I've occupied before, but that's the only "agenda" item I want to pursue as an Administrator. If in the future I see how a change could significantly improve things, and have the ability to follow through, I will bring it up in the appropriate venues as I did at Reform month and on some of the Administrators' user pages, with deference to my more senior Adminstrators.  I am also willing to share my ideas for Wikisource, even if I can't personally follow through on them, where appropriate.


 * Thanks again, John, for the honor of the nomination.


 * ResScholar 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That sig might not be set up quite right... ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, Lar, I don't have an autosig set up yet.  ResScholar 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's technically impossible to assign groups to an IP address, and that is very unlikely to change in the future. That is neatly circumvented if they register an account, perhaps something like User:216. They also need to accept the nomination for adminship, of course. — {admin} Pathoschild 15:30:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Wow, humble and hard-working. What's not to like? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support If we're sure these are all the same person, he's earned it.-- Poetlister 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks from comments below that it's all OK.-- Poetlister 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Great to see an account created. Giggy\talk 09:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose on account that Resident Scholar has no e-mail.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ResScholar has said that an email address will be sorted out shortly (see User talk:ResidentScholar). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. E-mail seems to be working and the new account already has over fifty edits. Nice.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support--Birgitte SB  23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Has anyone run a CU to evaluate the probability that the bulk of the contributions of the anons referenced are from the newly created user, ResidentScholar? I confess that, absent that (which remember is not infallible, but can give some assurance of a high probability of correlation) I'm not comfortable with making a pretty newly created under 100 edit user an admin here. Also, I'm not comfortable with "my role would be limited" promises... We should evaluate if this user is trustworthy enough to be an admin, regardless of what they say they want to focus on now... interests change and grow. This is a comment because I am neither opposing or supporting, only asking questions. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A CU analysis hasn't been conducted as far as I know - it should be done, but there is little reason for doubt. I certainly didnt mean to impose a limited role on ResidentScholar's adminship; it is however an area that the user has specialised in, demonstrating involvement in the community and a keen interest in policing our copyright policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a CU is warranted without good reason to suspect abuse. What about 216.165.199.50 or 64.154.26.251 stating on ResidentScholar's talk page that they are the same person?--GrafZahl (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason a CU is warranted is that RS wants the benefit of the edits the IP did in evaluating the adminship request. That's a voluntary thing (although I guess I should have been more explicit, that it should only be done with permission of RS, which I forgot to do). I see it's been carried out, and even without 64... the number of edits we now can reliably attribute to RS is quite an impressive number, especially the ones focused on the project... Far more than I had when I stood for adminship, to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've done a CheckUser check, after a request by Yann on IRC. The 216... IP and the user ResidentScholar are a match, so I'd say they are definitely the same user. 64... IP doesn't have any fresh edits, so CheckUser check shows nothing. -- Filip ( § ) 09:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Yann 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - per the above analysis. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Glad to have you editing with us with your new account. FloNight 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Impressive work, and knows more about licence templates than I do. :-) Cowardly Lion 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Appointed—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

2009-03 confirmation

 * Support -- billinghurst (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 09:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unanimously kept. Jude (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2010-04 confirmation

 * Keep — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hesperian 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — §  stay  ( sic ) ! 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but using edit summary a little more often will be better.--Jusjih (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep --Mattwj2002 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2011-05 confirmation

 * support without question — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Hesperian 12:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support — George Orwell III ( talk ) 12:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Zyephyrus (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Inductiveload—talk/contribs  02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.--Jusjih (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * confirmed — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

2012-06 confirmation

 * keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep--Mpaa (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep — Ineuw talk 19:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep--Jusjih (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - John Vandenberg (chat) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Bennylin (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

2013-07 confirmation

 * I am utterly conflicted. Obviously I have problems with this person's status as an administrator; but if it weren't for their so effectively invoking the Streisand effect… You all know how this ends. MODCHK (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to continued access to the block button. In the past year ResidentScholar has made some blocks that I thought extremely ill-advised, harmful to the community, and contrary to the inclusive, welcoming, tolerant culture that I want to see thrive here. And it appears to me that ResidentScholar stands by these actions and might well take similar such actions in future. This saddens me because I do believe that ResidentScholar cares about this project just as much as I do, and has always acted with the best of intentions. Hesperian 07:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . RS, as far as I can see, is a perfectly good admin, but there still remains the question of those blocks, which, in my opinion, were not required, and frankly alienating to good-faith users. No offense intended. —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . No doubts on the initial good faith of the blocks, even if questionable. What I did not appreciate in the whole story was the excessive argumentation, notwithstanding all the different opinions raised during the dispute.--Mpaa (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * —Maury (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with qualification. The issue that caused the dispute has been aired, albeit in a fashion that was unlikely to give closure. Such is the Wikisource way; we know what is expected now (no repetition). RS clearly has the interests of the project at heart, but needs to work on modus vivendi. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose blocking options for RS, be it by loss of admin tools or voluntary refrain from their use. I like others here, believe RS has the best intentions for WS, but occasionally those intentions lead to poor outcomes and needlessly disrupt Wikisource while harming fellow volunteers and the project . Since the last incident, RS has been voluntarily abstaining from blocking, that promise only extended to this confirmation discussion. I do not believe that the technical option exists to grant adminship without blocking rights, so pending a renewed commitment to not block, I can not support adminship for RS. Jeepday (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Support RS has promised  to refrain from blocking.  That is good enough for me. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone makes mistakes, but to apparently not listen when your peers point them out—many times, there’s a problem. RS was argumentative rather than being graceful in accepting that false accusations had been made, and that their actions caused unnecessary hurt. Several times they acted unilaterally, without initiating dialog. I haven’t seen any mention that they’d behave differently in the future, and so on that basis I’d prefer that they had a holiday from their admin duties and reapply as a fresh applicant in say 12 months. Moondyne (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - I wasn't active during this most recent issue, but I personally have found ResidentScholar to be outright rude and argumentative in the past. Without going into great detail (as most of it is available in the Scriptorium archives) I made an edit to a work, which they found unsatisfactory. This edit was converting the text via an Index creation into our ProofreadPage system. They brought the issue to Scriptorium (section "Is there a Santa Claus edit"), where I apologized to RS, as they seemed deeply invested in the page (though I note here they never edited the work prior). I explained myself, but it only led to RS comparing my reasoning to the Paula Poundstone Theory of Poptarts. Later, they actually brought up a typo I made in Scriptorium (section "Karl Max"). Since then, we've had little interaction that I can recall. However, these actions taught that some users weren't here to help me, and weren't very friendly. I asked them why of all things would an admin not fix the mistake I made, work with me through any issues and so on, but never got a response. I felt RS too quickly made me their enemy.
 * I was not to active during their last confirmation in 2012 so I've not voiced my concern anywhere then in the Scriptorium archives. Regardless, the manner in which they conduct themselves does not seem proper for an admin. And after reading the issues of blocking above, I couldn't find a single point where they simply apologized for the wrongdoing, at most RS seemed to apologize for other people not seeing the logic for the block. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 *  Reluctant oppose Keep—I have been thinking long and hard about this since the blocking incident in April and have been wavering on both sides of the line. I also fear appearing to be condescending, particularly as I was the one who forced the February incident to be aired. I very much value RS' contributions both to the mainspace and in the various discussions. Sure he can be blunt at times, but I suspect that there are external reasons for this. [On more than one occasion he has refered to needing to wait for medications to kick in so that he can think clearly enough to make a response.] His contributions to the discussion on Translations and Annotations were very helpful in clarifying the implications of the various proposals. He has an impeccable set of logs, with the exception of the blocks from 25 February, 2013 onwards. All previous blocks were appropriate and covered the various forms of vandalism we see. But the apparent inability to see that the incidents in February and April were against the Blocking policy has in the end tipped the balance for me. If RS is prepared to voluntarily put limits on his blocking, then I will happily change my vote to keep. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC). Changing my vote per ResidentScholar's response below. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Question Has anyone asked ResidentScholar if he even wants to continue as an administrator? He may feel "wounded" from the situation, outcome of the situation, and statements made against him during and after the situation and now. He has been an administrator since 2008 so he cannot be all bad as an administrator. He also has made many contributions over many years. There are negative statements I could make from two short clashes with him but I don't cling to bad feelings. I let them go. However, if I felt too wounded (hurt) I would get silent and perhaps or perhaps not contribute anything else after years of volunteer working here or elsewhere even if it involved a high paying job. IF he does not want the position then we need not go through this demeaning open "trial". I was here when the situation happened and I followed it. I was one of the first totally against Resident Scholar's judgment and wrote here "Two weeks on Bread and Water"? in the subject line. My thoughts are that he made a big mistake and tried to defend himself and his position. Still, he has been an administrator since 2008 and it is my belief not only can he change but also that en.Wikisource needs all of her people. In my thinking administrators are highly important and I sincerely do respect them even if I argue once or thrice. They are of high value in lending aid. One big mistake and years of good administrating and contributions and a person is ousted? Among many things it should be remembered that such contributions over so long a time is important. It's terrible when so many people are against a person and especially if any were supposed friends. Remove only his "blocking" power and let the man continue but do not remove his voluntary good works over years and in that—his dignity. It is best to at least ask him if he wants to continue. —Maury (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I brought the subject of up of commitment to the project without admin tools in this edit, there was no follow-up conversation in public or private. Additionally in this edit I asked for a comment here. RS’s  last edit was about 2 hours before the start of this confirmation discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information JeepdaySock. I just came from his talk page where you wrote to him and I made my statement to him there also. Hard feelings, hurt feelings, anger, even perhaps hatred are terrible things for anyone. Now my friend you see why I withdrew from an even running vote on becoming an administrator and voted for my running opponent Chris# (disappeared)—Maury (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't run against each other. Chris was not an opponent. He was just someone nominated at the same time as you. If you had not withdrawn, you both could have been appointed. Hesperian 00:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not know that people who had never been an administrator and running at the same time were not "opponents" for a position.—Maury (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I am unfamiliar with the blocking incident.--Jusjih (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hesperian expressed my opinion. I think that ResSchol has made some poor decisions which seem to hover around the Block button. Since the last experience that has stopped, and if there was a statement that this could continue, then I would support continued administration. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Billinghurst, I will state my intentions honestly at the risk of seeming overly-disputatious to some, so you know not just my commitments to refrain from blocking, but my motives.
 * After the first series of blocks, I was eager to be done with them as they had been time-consuming, and I was embarrassed that the basis of one of my blocks was something that I mistakenly thought a user had said and something for which I was obliged to give him an apology.
 * But when a second similar situation with MODCHK appeared, and, after gathering information for three hours, I had to weigh whether there was a risk of hours of extra work by the admins from speed-validating cleanup and to question why the situations were so similar, but also, not knowing the individuals involved, I had to consider whether this was a feint to engage an administrator active against vandalism with distracting doubts upon his temperament ("he's addicted to the blocking") and perhaps even discredit preventative blocks in general in order to perpetrate at some time in the near future a greater abuse [not to presume now that it was abuse] ResScholar (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC). Not to re-exhibit the administrative mechanics of the situation, but these individuals involved in what I had observed brought forth complaints from others on the Noticeboard that they be left alone and brought attendant embarrassment to me with a speed that surprised me, even with the premonitions I mentioned.
 * Of course, with the notoriety of the situation came the sunshine of community attention, and any would-be vandals (peeking into the adminstrative noticeboard) seeking to exploit the situation would only do so at the risk of discrediting the original reaction against blocking which came in the form of Jeepday's new edicts, and diminishing the reach of their [prospective] vandalism. Although I may question the language of the rules Jeepday spearheaded, I can't question the sentiment, and, like all official community standards here, I will of course support them, while I continue to try to engage community sentiment about what we value here.  For instance, I wish to join Jeepday in his hopes of softening the blows preventative administrative actions may inadvertently inflict on the innocent.  As an instance where, I, personally have fallen short, at the beginning of the discussion of the block, Hesperian used words about what I was trying to communicate through my block that seemed harsh to me.  I resented Hesperian's accusatory language and gave into reacting with language about the oddness of MODCHK's behavior, leaving open to implication the prejudgment that MODCHK was knowingly acting oddly.  For that, I apologize to MODCHK for tainting the preventative block with the color of punitiveness, punitive blocks being something we don't do at Wikisource.
 * But as I said, the individuals who have concerned themselves in working to grasp the issues, reluctantly or otherwise, in the (second) blocking incident I was involved in are now sets of eyes that any would-be vandal, having observed the events unfold and hoping that my embarrassment or the new restrictions on blocking would allow them an opening for mischief (immediately or in the long term), will now be intimidated away from by their forewarned gaze. Hence, even in light of these remote, but still possible situations, I can feel secure in setting the blocking tools down if there are still concerns about my use of them.
 * If there are things anyone would like to discuss about blocking that I am not seeing, feel free to bring them up on the Administrative Noticeboard or my talk page. For instance, let me know if you think I blew things out of proportion with the clean-up required for speed-validating errors, because I'm still hazy on the time frame for that.  ResScholar (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (tentatively). I wasn't involved with any of the banning incidents. I read about them later, and I've read the opinions here, and I think I am leaning to support retaining admin tools for now.  I can't be sure without any evidence or a statement from ResidentScholar but I think a recurrence of this issue is less likely now we've been through all of this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with reservations - I was all set to support RS as long as he spoke up and denounced his previous approach on blocking users -- the only issue that has arisen since his last confirmation from what I can tell. Sadly, I waited almost a month to see something like that come from him and without it I can't be sure supporting him would be fair to the process. Gladly vote to re-confirm if and when that mea culpa is forth coming. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . There are two reasons why I haven't given an opinion until now, and two reasons why I'll support Resident Scholar now. I haven't given an opinion until now because I wished to encourage  the inclusive, welcoming, tolerant culture Hesperian has spoken about and discourage a blocking one. This first reason was not a sufficient one to be either neutral or opposing, but sufficient enough not to support, so I kept silent. But one reason made me wish to support Resident Scholar: when we have had a problem about a translation it would neither have been solved by RS alone, nor solved by me alone, it was solved when both of us worked on it together. So I've waited for his showing what he intends to do now: it's done, and I support keeping him. --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

2014-08 confirmation (declined)

 * in full expectation Ineuw will double-out-vote me again. AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . A valued editor, but unsuited as an admin. Moondyne (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "What makes him unsuitable as an administrator?" --Ineuw (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not comfortable with the tone they used here but mostly the conspiracy accusation in the ensuing discussion. The earlier block fiasco is not yet 12 months old and I’m not quite over that. There is a price to be paid for tacitly accepting or normalising recurring bad judgements as so-and-so is a bit prickly, best to ignore....  Moondyne (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What you call "discussion" in "the ensuing discussion", I regard as individual acts of harassment, the second of three occasions of harassment where the stewards Billinghurst and Hesperian were targeted as well. ResScholar (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also this edit is not what I would expect from anyone representing the community. Jeepday (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking long and hard about this, and I'm afraid this time I have to oppose. I agree that he is an excellent editor, but he seems to be rather prone to antagonizing others. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While both editing and contributions from RS seem fine fine to me, and despite personally receiving valued assistance and inspiration, I have to agree that the recent odd community interaction does not befit an admin. Raising a point to discuss it, even if the discussion becomes controversial or heated, is fine by me. I also have no objections to quiet admin assistance in the background, without involvement in community politics. But publicly raising vague accusations against a group of other admins, yet refusing to discuss the issue? No willingness to share specifics, no follow through, no apology nor retraction, just dumped accusation and abandonment. Such behavior does not reflect well on the community when that behavior comes from one of our admins. Some degree of proper etiquette seems to be expected in our admins by community consensus, even if that criterion is not stated in policy in black and white, so I have chosen to side with those who oppose. Note: If the community does reach such a consensus here, we should consider adding some sort of blurb to our admin policies to state the community view on this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They weren't intended as formal accusations, but nevertheless, Jeepday closed the discussion prematurely. ResScholar (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Formal or informal, you made accusations under a heading of "do not attack the admins", named three fellow admins, but then refused to discuss it when asked about the particulars. By the time Jeepday acted, you had already pulled out of the discussion, without doing anything but making the vague accusation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A highly valued contributor, but I can not continue to support for admin. Jeepday (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Having read through all linked posts, but not being involved in any of the issues, permits me to take a less personal view. I now understand everyone's position. The best I can do is change my position to --Ineuw (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * --Mpaa (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * —Maury (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * has not misused tools in the past year, and has followed community direction. Re approach, there are some who have voted above who should be criticising for outspoken words! Admin tools are not a high hurdle, and their use is what is in question. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * — reluctantly. Anything I'd have to say has been covered already. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * per 4 relevant links above.--Jusjih (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * —per Billinghurst, RS has not misused the admin tools in the past year. The one block made in that time (12 July 2014) was a spam only account and therefore completely non-controversial. All other admin actions have performed in accordance with the policies we have in place for the maintenance of enWS. Removal of the tools in response to inappropriate cantankerous petulance in a discussion is against our policies as they currently stand (Adminship & WS:AP). If sanctions need to be enacted for this behaviour, then that is a different discussion. WS:AN is the appropriate venue for that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * for the same reasons as Billinghurst and Beeswaxcandle. I don't like the idea of removing sysop rights merely for having a disagreeable interaction.  That shouldn't be a criterion for being an administrator here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll recuse from closing this since I expressed a view last year. I have asked BirgitteSB to effect this close. Hesperian 00:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Escalated.[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=9734402&oldid=9731542] Hesperian 01:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. I would have preferred to recuse, but the stewards want a local close before they will act. Zhaladshar has voted and BirgitteSB cannot be reached at this time, so I guess I'll have to step up.... Hesperian 05:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done.[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=9749285&oldid=9748537] Hesperian 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)