Wikisource:Administrators

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators
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:

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) 2015-03
Angr German (fluent), French (intermediate) 2015-04 mul.ws admin
Beeswaxcandle 2015-08
Billinghurst 2015-07 CheckUser, WMF steward + others see all
BirgitteSB Spanish (intermediate) 2015-08 bureaucrat
Charles Matthews French (intermediate), Russian (basic) 2014-12
Chris55 French (intermediate), Spanish, German, Latin(basic) 2014-09
Cirt Spanish (basic) 2014-11
Clockery Malayalam, Hindi (intermediate) 2015-03
Dmitrismirnov Russian 2015-02
Dominic Spanish (advanced) 2015-01 enwp admin, enwikt admin
Doug German, French (basic) 2015-07 developer, mul.ws admin and importer
Eliyak Hebrew (intermediate) 2014-12
EncycloPetey Spanish (intermediate), Latin (intermediate), French (basic), German (basic), Ancient Greek (basic) 2015-01 enwikt admin, species admin
EVula 2014-09
Geo Swan 2014-12
George Orwell III 2014-10
GorillaWarfare Spanish (basic) 2015-07 enwp admin
GrafZahl German, French (basic), Latin (basic) 2015-09 administers admin bot TalBot
Hesperian 2015-08 bureaucrat, admin@commons, admin@en.wp
Htonl Afrikaans (intermediate) 2015-04 CheckUser
Inductiveload French (basic), German (intermediate) 2015-09
Ineuw Hungarian, Hebrew, French (intermediate) 2015-05
Jeepday 2015-03 OTRS, enwp.admin
John Vandenberg 2015-05 mul.ws admin
Jusjih Chinese (Mandarin, traditional, simplified), French (basic), Korean (learning) 2015-05 mul.ws admin and importer, enwp admin, enwikt admin
Kathleen.wright5 2015-02
Mpaa Italian 2015-04
Phe French 2014-12 mul.ws admin
Prosfilaes Esperanto (basic) 2014-12
Prosody 2015-01
ResidentScholar French (intermediate) 2014-08
Sanbeg 2014-09 developer
Spangineer Spanish (advanced) 2015-07 CheckUser
Tarmstro99 2015-06
Theornamentalist Spanish (read—intermediate) 2015-08
Wild Wolf 2014-09
Yann French, Hindi (intermediate) 2015-05 mul.ws admin
Zhaladshar German (basic), Latin (basic) 2015-05 bureaucrat
Zyephyrus French, Latin, Ancient Greek 2015-04 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

Chris55[edit]

admin since July 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Chris55 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

EVula[edit]

admin since August 2012, previously admin from November 2008 to December 2010 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). EVula will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
Note: Last edit here was on 27 December 2013. Active elsewhere e.g. English Wikipedia. Hesperian 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sanbeg[edit]

admin since February 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Sanbeg will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
Note: Last edit here was on 6 September 2013. Apparently inactive across all sister projects. Hesperian 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wild Wolf[edit]

admin since March 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Wild Wolf will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
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)

Inductiveload[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Confirmed: a majority of established voters support continued access, per the restricted access policy. Hesperian 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Admin since April 2010 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). Inductiveload will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
Achtung.svg The requirements for a vote of confidence are met below; the user's continued access will be decided by a simple majority of established voters.
Note: Last edit here was on 23 November 2013; 20 edits since 1 August 2013; not currently active on any Wikimedia project. Hesperian 00:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Give them a chance to resign if appropriate. AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg General comments (Also applies to discussions below and elsewhere; You all ought to be horrified that with my reputation I have to lecture you on proper behaviour.) I feel there is a risk of conflating at least three completely independent issues going on here:
  1. Edit skills (the administration vote is never the right place to assess/comment upon this and must never be taken as criticism of unrelated or unaddressed matters.)
  2. Security issues (inactivity is never an indication of security failure; if it were why are normal user accounts not suspended after periods of inactivity? Be consistent.)
  3. Administration skills/mores/behaviour/attitudes (kindly address the issue; attempt to explain misunderstandings; don't shut down discussion on the basis of selfish discomfort; don't shoot the messenger simply because you lack the courage to address underlying problems; don't actively try to make a bad situation worse even if you believe your intentions are good. Attempt to balance the inevitable conflict between the previous guidelines.)
I had better bracket sign the above for those who don't read differences. AuFCL (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what brought this on, but no one has suggested there has been security failure. I opposed reconfirmation in accordance with the general principles of restricted access, as linked above these voting sections. An admin has restricted access (that's what it's called) that a normal user does not. A hacked normal account cannot mess with the site in the same way that a hacked admin account can. Inactive admins are desysoped as a preventative measure; we shouldn't wait for a serious problem to occur. My comments with my vote serve to indicate that no action or failure on the part of the admin has been seen; it is merely a preventative measure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I support Inductiveload because of his invaluable contributions to WS and hope that he'll return soon. In the meantime, his footprints are visible all over the web, and keep bumping into him.Ineuw (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in the hope he returns soon. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for security reasons through inactivity. I would have no problems with quick reinstatement as admin should this editor return. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Essentially inactive: if they come back I would encourage self nomination for return of tools. Jeepday (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mpaa (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Maury (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC) There are several if not many people here on wikisource that I will always "support" and Inductiveload is among the top of them even if he only visited once a year. I had problems with a white background hurting my eyes and I asked Inductiveload if he could create a colored background. He did that and more inc. colored text. ONLY because he did created that anti-Eye-Strain javascript that I have been able to continue on wikisource which is the reason I am still here. The background I use is light grey and the text is black. It is because of people like Inductiveload, and there are many with different skills, that wikisource exists and continues to exist.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportbillinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — Being inactive is a security risk. Refreshing the large number of tools/scripts he generated would go a long way here towards reinstatement upon his return. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Long inactivity risks security and I see no unique language skills of this user. We do have other French- and German-speaking administrators.--Jusjih (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (your unique Chinese- and Korean-speaking administrator, but my Korean is still very limited)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given their recent contribution history they're about due for another burst of editing. If that doesn't manifest then I'll vote down their next confirmation for security's sake. Prosody (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose solely on the ground of inactivity per WS:AP. No problems from my perspective with regaining the tools upon return. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Confirmed: a majority of established voters support continued access, per the restricted access policy. Hesperian 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ResidentScholar[edit]

Admin since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki). ResidentScholar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
Achtung.svg The requirements for a vote of confidence are met below; the user's continued access will be decided by a simple majority of established voters.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in full expectation Ineuw will double-out-vote me again. AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. A valued editor, but unsuited as an admin. Moondyne (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral "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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 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 Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Ineuw (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Mpaa (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose —Maury (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support has not misused tools in the past year, and has followed community direction. Re approach, there are some who have voted above who should not 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — reluctantly. Anything I'd have to say has been covered already. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per 4 relevant links above.--Jusjih (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support—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 (Wikisource: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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 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)

Nominations for adminship[edit]

Older nominations are archived.