Wikisource:Administrators

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:Administrator)
Jump to: navigation, search
←Community page Administrators Archives→
Shortcut:
WS:ADMINS
This page provides information on the English Wikisource's current administrators (see also multilingual admins and the software's list of admins). For an historical list of all admins with links to their relevant election and confirmation pages, see the Admin Archives Timeline.

See also:

Contents


Current administrators [edit]

Administrators are given access for one year per the Restricted access policy. Regular votes are held to confirm each user's status. Other languages indicate the areas in which the administrators might be able to converse with outside project members, or help provide public domain translations.

Username Other languages Next Confirmation Other access
AdamBMorgan German (basic), Polish (learning) 2014-02
Angr German (fluent), French (intermediate) 2014-03 mul.ws admin
Beeswaxcandle 2013-06
Billinghurst 2013-05 CheckUser, WMF steward + others
BirgitteSB Spanish (intermediate) 2013-06 bureaucrat
Charles Matthews French (intermediate), Russian (basic) 2013-10
Chris55 French (intermediate), Spanish, German, Latin(basic) 2013-08
Cirt Spanish (basic) 2013-10
Dmitrismirnov Russian 2014-01
Dominic Spanish (advanced) 2013-12 enwp admin, enwikt admin
Doug German, French (basic) 2013-05 developer, mul.ws admin and importer
Eliyak Hebrew (intermediate) 2013-10
EncycloPetey Spanish (intermediate), Latin (intermediate), French (basic), German (basic), Ancient Greek (basic) 2013-11 enwikt admin, species admin
EVula 2013-08
Geo Swan 2013-10
George Orwell III 2013-09
GrafZahl German, French (basic), Latin (basic) 2013-07 administers admin bot TalBot
Hesperian 2013-06 bureaucrat
Htonl Afrikaans (intermediate) 2014-03
Inductiveload French (basic), German (intermediate) 2013-07
Jeepday 2014-02
John Vandenberg 2014-04 mul.ws admin
Jusjih Mandarin, traditional and simplified Chinese, French (basic) 2014-04 WMF steward, mul.ws admin and importer
Kathleen.wright5 2014-01
Mpaa Italian 2014-03
Pathoschild French 2013-08 WMF steward, CheckUser
Phe French 2013-10 mul.ws admin
Prosfilaes Esperanto (basic) 2013-10
ResidentScholar French (intermediate) 2013-07
Sanbeg 2013-08 developer
Spangineer Spanish (advanced) 2013-05 CheckUser
Tarmstro99 2014-05
Theornamentalist Spanish (read—intermediate) 2013-06
Wild Wolf 2013-08
Yann French, Hindi (intermediate) 2014-04 mul.ws admin
Zhaladshar German (basic), Latin (basic) 2014-04 bureaucrat
Zyephyrus French, Latin, Ancient Greek 2014-03 mul.ws bureaucrat

Confirmation discussions [edit]

Restricted access depends on the continued support of the community. This may be tested by a vote of confidence, in which a simple majority (50%+1) must support the user's continued access for it to be retained. (What access a discussion concerns should be explicitly noted in the discussion's introduction.) Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called. Such a proposal is made automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal (concerning all restricted access).

In the case of an unscheduled (called) proposal, the user may not use the restricted access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed. A bureaucrat will eventually archive the discussion and, if so decided, request removal of restricted access by a steward.
 —Restricted access policy


Billinghurst [edit]

Administrator since January 2009, checkuser since September 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

To note that in April 2013, I removed a block placed by another administration without consulting them. At that time, I notified the administrator community explained what I had done and why, and stated that I would raise this at my confirmation. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. MODCHK (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Always! —Maury (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --Mpaa (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wheel warring is a serious matter, you where correct to bring it up at your confirmation. When admins use their tools to undo the actions of another admin it is the worst kind of edit warring, the potential harm to the community is significant. Your removal of the block was is strongly discouraged by our policy, additionally you did not make an attempt to contact the blocking admin to reverse their own block as it encouraged by the same policy, nor did you "notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at Administrators' noticeboard that you are unblocking a blocked user, before doing so". Having watched and participated in the ongoing discussion of the issue bringing about the events, I see no evidence that unblock was emotionally motivated, nor did I see evidence of ongoing conflict between you and the blocking admin after the unblock. Subsequent conversations and actions support that your action was ultimately correct and reflected the consensus of the community. Keeping in mind that the blocking admin, also believed that s/he had or would have the supported consensus of the community, this was strong potential for undue conflict to result. In this case there were significant considerations and a history of a nearly identical case. While I don’t support the order of your actions (unblock > Notify), nor do I believe the unblock need to occur in an immediate time frame (the block user did not appear to be currently attempting to edit). The correct action would have post the intent to unblock within a specific time frame (i.e. 5 minutes), and then unblock if there was no response. While ultimately the correct action, your execution had room for improvement, you wisely did not engage in other aggravating actions, which shows extremely good judgement and presents as a non-warring activity. Conditional support, please don’t do it again. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Jeepday, although you come to right conclusion at the end more or less, this was not wheel warring and should not be titled as such. While the term is not defined on Wikisource that I'm aware of, it's the undoing of an administrator revert: WP:Wheel, that is an admin reverting an admin who reverted them. Therefore, had ResScholar re-blocked, that would be wheel warring, not Billinghurst's unblock. Moreover, unblocking was done for the good of the community and this was not ResScholar's first screw up in this regard. Sometimes we are too averse to conflict on this project to do what is best for the community. Billinghurst did the right thing and saying that he has participated in "the worst kind of edit warring" is not just insulting, it's simply wrong.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Doug is correct that WP:Wheel defines it as reverting a revert, we don’t use the term and our expectations are slightly different. I respect Billinghurst and nothing here has changed that. Billinghurst did knowingly violate the notification expectation, and knew that doing so was the first step into what could have resulted in wheel war, Had he followed our our policy, it would have started a community consensus to revert the block. There were many subtleties ongoing, my impression was and still is that Billinghurst knowingly made the change outside of our policy, and posted the message that he did in order to send a stronger message (that unfortunately was not received).
  • Two wrongs don’t make a right.
  • The ends do not justify the means.
  • Both the blocking and the unblocking where done for the good of the community, both admins thought they were doing the right thing, both thought they had a good reason to knowingly violate our expectations.
IMHO Billinghurst took a gamble that his action would send a message that would cut short a an unpleasant episode. All of use except for one saw what was going on. Many of us did our best to limit the damage. The fact the most of us agree that knowingly incorrect action by Billinghurst, was not damaging to the community; while the other admins knowingly incorrect action, disrupted the community and created far more harm then good, does not detract from both actions being equally wrong. As George has mentioned below "I don't think the above mentioned deviation indicates a pattern". Additionally his follow up actions were very good, and did probably help to limit the damage. It is important to me to call out and challenge this action, not because it reflects badly on Billinghurst, but because ignoring it would reflect badly on the community. Very shortly we are going to be having another discussion about ’knowingly incorrect action for the good of the community’, let’s try not to judge just by the outcome. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The policy sits subsidiary to the principles with which we profess, and the policy has been written to try to capture and to give such guidance to administrators. It is up to the community whether it believes that my actions were outside of the principles. If the actions were outside of the written policy, and if so were they reasonable or not. If reasonable, then whether the policy should capture such actions, or that it makes things so complex that again the confirmation process is the place for that review. If unreasonable, then whether it requires sanction or not. Judging on a policy alone just makes one controlled by a rule, not the intent of the rule, and that it is there to guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Doug [edit]

Administrator since March 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Doug will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

Spangineer [edit]

Administrator since November 2006, checkuser since February 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Spangineer will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

Nominations for adminship [edit]

Older nominations are archived.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators&oldid=4419794"