Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Hesperian

Category:Archive pages

Hesperian

2008-01 admin

Hesperian (talk • contribs)

Since registering in early July, 2005 Hesperian has been diligently contributing texts about Australia and botany. In addition to that, he is an admin on Wikipedia, with 30,000 edits on similar topics.

The only "problem" here was the first work, My Life's Adventure by Author:John Kirwan, contributed June 5, 2005; it was raised at WS:COPY on November 19, 2006, Hesperian chimed in within 24hrs, explained why he had presumed it to be PD, and acknowledged that it should be deleted.

In addition to 1300 contributions here and ~100 to the Latin Wikisource, he has also taken up the task of patrolling the RC feed since it was recently available to non-admins. John Vandenberg 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John; I accept. Hesperian 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. John Vandenberg 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. After carefully reviewing this users contributions, here and on w:en, I believe Hesperian to be careful, thorough, and civil. Quadell 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Long time contributor with many quality edits. RC patrolling shows interest in helping with admin type tasks. Joins in discussions about Community issues. Will be a good addition to the admin team. FloNight 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support One early mistake is scarcely fatal!--Poetlister 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Eclecticology 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Cowardly Lion 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Dovi 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Moondyne 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Appointed--BirgitteSB 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2009-02 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:

Confirmed


2010-03 confirmation

Administrator since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Keep because we always need one — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not sure that we can find another Hesperian, so let us keep this one :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly. Jude (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Phe (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stuff, -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to Wikistats, he has more namespace edits than anyone. ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Gosh, really? Hesperian 09:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed: confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2011-04 confirmation

Admin since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

2011-09 bureaucrat

Hesperian (talk • contribs) • activity • Global

Wikisource currently has two bureaucrats and my reflecting on existing needs indicates to me that we could do with a third, and to that point I would like to nominate Hesperian for that role (role explanation at m:bureaucrat). To my view, our bureaucrats are in space where they are judging and acting on the will of the community, so generally they are among our more senior editors and administrators, though probably moved out of the more activist mode and into the contemplative mode. I believe that Hesperian fulfils both of those criteria, and has exhibited required abilities to undertake this role on behalf of the community. He first edited both Wikipedia and Wikisource back in the mediæval period, has achieved sysop mop level at a few sites and has approximately 200k edits across the Wikimedia properties. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, billinghurst; I accept.
I share billinghurst's view that the role is to humbly enact the community's will, and is therefore best suited to someone who has stepped back from actively driving agendas and moulding opinion. I seem to have drifted that way over the last year or so, so I am happy to serve as bureaucrat if you guy's'll have me. Hesperian 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems like a great suggestion, lots of things to consider here, first impression is support. Wanted to post something positive while I think about it and before I make my formal recommendation. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Support, as I look back through old discussions, I am reminded of all the level headed comments and actions Hesperian has made. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support entirely.--Zyephyrus (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to nom Hesperian myself. I think we need several more crats and could stand to have many more. Of all the experienced participants, Hesperian goes to the top of the list for experience, trustworthiness, and judgment.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Holy crap 200k edits! I also support the idea we get him another keyboard. I am guessing he wore out his original one he used for editing the Wikimedia projects! :) With the number edits and years of experience, I give him my full backing. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - most important to me, civility, and Hesperian has it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. As we have so many administrators, having the third bureaucrat will much better justify why we always need our own bureaucrats. Some wikis with just two bureaucrats have both of them inactive. --Jusjih (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Concur with billinghurst on the nature of this role, and Hesperian's suitability for this role. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Only 2 bureaucrats?!?! C'mon, wikisource has 41 admins! Surely more than just 3 bureaucrats would be better so there won't be any backlogs to crat-related matters (i.e. renames, promotions, bots, etc). —stay (sic)! 12:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree, stay, I was originally intending to nominate at least two people but got preempted by Billinghurst on this one.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hesperian has been promoted to bureaucrat.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2012-05 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:

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


Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2013-06 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:

confirmed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Support--Mpaa (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 Support MODCHK (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 Support —Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Support--Jusjih (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 Support — George Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 Support —Maury (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Support — ResScholar (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

2014-07 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:

confirmed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


  •  Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support — Ineuw talk 01:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support —Maury (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — AuFCL (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    In your current capacity as bureaucrat you have to be answerable to a higher standard. I am perfectly happy to support you in your capacity as potential continuing sysop. AuFCL (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Though active as bureaucrat, higher standard is desirable.--Jusjih (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support — ResScholar (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ineuw (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC) unintentional double vote Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support — George Orwell III (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 06:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

2015-08 confirmation

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

The following discussion is closed:

Confirmed in both rôles Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support BD2412 T 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support and will vote for you again with a sock if you validate Index:Admiral Phillip.djvu smiley — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In order to head off this dire threat, I have completed this validation. So there. BD2412 T 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support admin flag, but I would weakly  Oppose bureaucrat flag for the reason of site efficiency, with nothing personal, especially when BirgitteSB may be de-flagged soon and Zhaladshar has not had bureaucrat activity for more than a year. Having just one active bureaucrat could concentrate the power to one user too much, while any disinterested stewards could do bureaucrats' work with better efficiency. These are the reasons why I would quit four bureaucrat flags elsewhere. May I propose splitting the administrator and bureaucrat confirmations starting next time?--Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support — Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

2016-09 confirmation

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

The following discussion is closed:

Confirmed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

2017-10 confirmation

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

The following discussion is closed:

Confirmed in both rôles Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support — Ineuw talk 06:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support BD2412 T 22:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support — Hrishikes (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Provisionally  Oppose bureaucrat's flag but support administrator's flag. Why mix bureaucrat's confirmation here? If any administrator is also a bureaucrat or checkuser, each restricted access should be separately confirmed. Mixing up may look suspicious as manipulating the process to avoid losing any bureaucrat while I see no bureaucrats' action after 14 May 2017. To support continuing any bureaucrat, please do it separately with no more mix up with administrator's flag.--Jusjih (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The most recent test of community consensus on splitting confirmations is here; feel free to start a new discussion if you think consensus has changed. Hesperian 00:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      No change from me. Splitting as you have done is sufficient. Personally I don't like voting against a person 'crat's flag because you don't like crats. Please have that discussion separately to the community rather than be divisive, noting that I would still favour our retention of that right. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretfully  Oppose. I find this deleted edit troubling, particularly coming from an administrator. Spangineer (háblame) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not the best moment, but we all occasionally need to blow off steam. Doing that through a posted-and-deleted rant is not nearly as bad as doing that through some abuse of the admin tools, which didn't happen here. BD2412 T 21:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      • What was worst about it, and the reason I deleted it, was it was too broad: I intended to have a crack at a specific small number of people who are continually inconsiderate in the way they go about their business here, and thus negatively impact others' enjoyment of the site. But when I realised that others, not of that small number, who were just trying to help, might think it was directed at them, then I was ashamed of myself, and deleted it. No, not the best moment. Hesperian 00:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Spangineer:: Thanks for pointing out a controversy, so now I  Oppose both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Gotcha.--Jusjih (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Jusjih: What is "Gotcha" about? I have much more sympathy for an uncharacteristic—albeit honest—venting of a deep frustration than I do for one who revels in so-called "controversy" (unless I misunderstand). Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • YesY without hesitation — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support both flags —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    • To @Spangineer:, @Jusjih: and to the community in general, Under the circumstances, I don't think that there is anything wrong with venting one's feelings once in a while. It was done, get over it and move on. I happen to be sympathetic and understanding of Hesperian's frustration about others' attitude towards his favourite project. It would have been a far better contribution to his efforts "by those others" if his proofread pages would have been validated. — Ineuw talk 06:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ineuw: That's fine; I understand that position. And I appreciate Hesperian's frustration, and the hard work that he has put into this project. But I do not believe that such an extremely aggressive response was appropriate, even if it had been clearly restricted to only those people that were causing the frustration. Hesperian, you, and others seem to disagree with me on this. Personally I prefer to participate in environments in which such attacks are not tolerated, but others prefer a more sympathetic approach. That's understandable, but it doesn't change my regretful oppose. Spangineer (háblame) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support — I trust that they'll make the right decisions for the project in their capacities as admin, bureaucrat, and editor. Prosody (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support —C. F. 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

2018-11 confirmation

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2019-12 confirmation

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  •  Support --Xover (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support nice to have the historical — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support remaining an administrator. If going away for some time as a bureaucrat, please tell the other bureaucrat and consider a notice on top of your user page.--Jusjih (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support BD2412 T 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --BethNaught (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support — Ineuw (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --DannyS712 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

2021-01 confirmation

Admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2022-02 confirmation

admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2023-03 confirmation

The following discussion is closed:

Admin status confirmed; bureaucrat resignation actioned. BD2412 T 18:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


admin since January 2008; bureaucrat since September 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  •  Support PseudoSkull (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Zyephyrus (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Hesperian: In this discussion you expressed a desire to be stood down from `crat duties. Would you like to exempt that flag here so the confirmation is only for your +sysop (that I assume you want to keep)? BD2412 and Beeswaxcandle appear well up to speed and handling the tasks with aplomb, so I think we're reasonably well covered on that count if you're to busy IRL too keep up with the role. --Xover (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for that reminder. Yes, I think that is best. When a 'crat actions this confirmation, can they please also action my resignation as 'crat? Hesperian 00:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    Ironically, that will constitute the most 'crat work needing to be done here for months. BD2412 T 00:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    Note: Bureaucrat resignation actioned at Meta. BD2412 T 02:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support (and thanks for the long service as a 'crat!) --Xover (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

2024-04 confirmation

admin since 2008-01 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  •  Comment According to the logs, the last deletion and page move without a redirect were both in February and May of 2022 respectively, and no blocks were performed since 2014. @Hesperian: Do you still desire to keep the admin role? SnowyCinema (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm still here, and would like to retain admin. Hesperian 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Xover (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support, good contributor, expressed desire to retain adminship. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

2025-05 confirmation (not confirmed)

The following discussion is closed:

Not confirmed. BD2412 T 01:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)


admin since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Hesperian will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
  •  Oppose for no activity after 2024-07-23 here.--Jusjih (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for inactivity, but hope for a return. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Last activity on English Wikipedia was a random keep vote in a deletion discussion on 2025-01-12 05:53, according to CrossActivity, so at this point a return is plausible. Of course, I'd love to see them return regardless. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for inactivity, and thanks for the long service. — Alien  3
    3 3     07:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the long service too. Hope you return... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Category:Archive pages