Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Wild Wolf

2008-03 admin


Wild Wolf started adding content in March 2007 until April 2007, expanding our Chesterton collection, inc. The Catholic Church and Conversion, The Crimes of England, The Common Man, Do We Agree?, The Apostle and the Wild Ducks, Irish Impressions, Divorce versus Democracy, Fancies Versus Fads, St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, Varied Types, George Bernard Shaw, The Logical Vegetarian, Twelve Types, The Well and the Shallows, The Spice of Life and Other Essays, Survivals and New Arrivals: The Old and New Enemies of the Catholic Church‎ , The Cruise of the Snark, Revolution and Other Essays, First and last and more. In addition to those, Wild Wolf create The Scandal of Father Brown, The Outline of Sanity, Robert Louis Stevenson (Chesterton), and William Cobbett, since deleted due to this discusion.

Since April 2007, Wild Wolf has been working very hard organising our Author pages. When the rest of us create author pages, most of us don't bother categoring them very well; we all know that Wild Wolf will do it, and will do it well. Of a total ~3500 edits, almost 2500 are to the Author namespace.

His work here hasnt been contested that I have seen, except for the US copyright issues which are a steep learning curve for everyone. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept the nomination and thank everyone for the honor. Wild Wolf 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, he is indeed a god at improving author pages -- and I hope that by making him an administrator, we can demand even more from him! :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been pleasurably surprised on occasion, after adding a new text with correct header and licence but nothing else, to find him diligently adding the finishing touches that I was too lazy to work out. Cowardly Lion 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Capital fellow!-- Poetlister 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A long history of important contributions to the site. Tarmstro99 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Dovi 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Yann 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nominator and Cowardly Lion. FloNight 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Appointed--Birgitte SB  17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2009-04 confirmation

 *  Very weak Oppose, no edits in March, and only a few edits in the preceding months, but clear indication of activity before then. Jude (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral would like to hear of anticipations and expectations -- billinghurst (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose and allocate Auto-Patrolled status. Modification made on basis of: Not hearing from WW; that we can now auto-patrol known good contributors; and that it has been indicated that WW rarely uses admin tools.  Happy to reconsider if indications of proposed use are discussed. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Desysop; inactivity; he can request them back when he wishes to resume administration. If he says now that he intends to use them soon, then that is good enough for me. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove - per Jayvdb. Last significant and sustained activity 7 or 8 months old. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, removing admin privs reduces the chances a user will return to active administration; since it presents one more hurdle for them. WW is one of our most dedicated contributors who cleans up the project, not just text-dumping works. I'd hate to do anything that might reduce his usefulness in the future. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland. 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; I don't think it's a problem to let trusted users keep the admin tools during periods of low activity; as Shururcij says, it increases the likelihood of their return, and doesn't harm the project. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is the preferred means, then maybe we should look to modify the admin component as it seems to put the issue of security first. I would think that we should also be able to ask an admin what are their intentions for use of the tools, as the initial phase as a vote of confidence, as I can see both sides of what is trying to be achieved. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was of the opinion that the entire point of a restricted access policy was to remove any and all possibility of accounts being hijacked. Having one's access removed is not an issue; mine was removed, and I reapplied for it after a period of inactivity and got it back. It's not a difficult procedure. Jude (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the restricted access policy, but we're talking about individual users voting based on stricter definitions of "inactivity" than what actually appears in the policy. Nothing wrong with that; I simply disagree.  Reapplying for adminship feels like a hassle (at least to me), and I don't think the security risk is substantial enough to put proven users through it again unnecessarily. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He clearly has recent activity.  There's no evidence that his failure to use the tools is harmful or creates a security hazard. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Although he's never used the tools much, he's also, despite a long stretch of low activity, never quite met our definition on inactivity. To what Spangineer said, I'd add that our policy predates single user login, so if anything account hijacking is less of an issue than when that was written, unless they're inactive on all projects. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per Steve Sanbeg.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Billinghurst. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Sherurcij, Jeepday (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, with 60% support. — Pathoschild 18:44:23, 03 May 2009 (UTC)

2010-05 confirmation

 * Keep though may need more vitamin D — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, with mild concern at the drama here that might have been avoided if Wild Wolf had been more communicative. Hesperian 23:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that was my hint above; humans communicate with words, and when words aren't happening one is left to presume and assume, and that isn't helpful. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Mattwj2002 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

2011-06 confirmation
Confirmed--Birgitte SB  16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Eliyak T · C 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * has my full support as an editor, though I am neutral with regard to administration.  Neither uses the tools, nor participates in wider conversations. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. -- --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Billinghurst. No admin actions since 2009 and only two since 2008. Good at non-admin mop work, so I have no prejudice for the retention of the tools if they could be needed. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, no problems. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; active with no problems. Hesperian 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support — mc10 ( t / c ) 00:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

2012-07 confirmation

 * support though doesn't seem to use tools or rights — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * support --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — George Orwell III (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support--Mpaa (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support --Eliyak T · C 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * support — Ineuw talk 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral—non-use of tools begs the question of whether they are needed; however, non-use also means they're not being abused. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support--Jusjih (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

2013-08 confirmation

 * Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Well, WW technically could be called "active" here, but only for a single 20-minute stint in the past 16 months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol_oppose_vote.svg Weak oppose per EncycloPetey.  —Clockery Fairfeld  (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MODCHK (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * inactivity —Maury (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * never uses tools — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-use of tools begs the question of whether they are needed; however, non-use also means they're not being abused (same comment as last year). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

2014-09 confirmation (unsuccessful)

 * Note: Last edit here was on 15 July 2013. Blocked on the English Wikipedia following a sockpuppet investigation in April 2014. Globally inactive since. Hesperian 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * — Inactivity is a security risk and this case is an example of why diligence is key. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances it seems unlikely we'll see them back. Prosody (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (as above) --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * though I am not so certain about sockpuppetry w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wild_Wolf — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * for inactivity.--Jusjih (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify: "due to inactivity" does not imply that automatic reinstatement will be available to Wild Wolf should they return. I think in this case there is (just) enough concern for us to require a fresh test of community consensus. Hesperian 00:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal requested[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=10058512&oldid=10058358] and actioned[//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=10058565&oldid=10058512]. Hesperian 00:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)