Wikisource talk:Administrators

Guidelines for appointing Admins

I will start this off. The criteria I have used for suggesting names is that the person proposed had made a contribution adding and working on texts, and also taken part in discussions on Scriptorium and elsewhere about how Wikisource works. They need to have been around for a bit so we have a feel for how they work and also collaborate with others. If they have a similar demonstrable input onto other parts of the Empire such as WP,so much the better. WS is not the same as WP, and in many ways technically more difficult, so we have to be certain that candidates are happy with this.

I don't think that numbers of edits really counts. I have never bothered to check. I am not clear what this statistic means anyway.Is it unique pages of text, or is it every time the user uploads a few words on a discussion page? Apwoolrich 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree: taking part in discussions/proposals/debates (when applicable—if the user does not know much about the topic, then naturally they shouldn't have to discuss it)/policies should be a requisite. This actually gets the user into Wikisource (adding a text and taking part in a discussion really are two different things). It lets other people see that this user is taking the project seriously, and there will be a smaller likelihood that the user will just up and disappear.

I do think, though, that edits should be taken into account. Of course, the edits should be analyzed for they're productivity. That means, I'd rather take a person who has 200 edits which have produced very fruitful results than someone with 800 who has spent much of the time doing minor edits a bot could do.

So, with this in mind, should there be a minimum length of time of active contribution before a user is elligible for adminship? Maybe three or four months? And by active, I do mean active—taking part in discussions, uploading texts, making major changes, and so on.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much benefit in the number of edits a particular user has as that doesn't really tell you anything - they could all be vandalism for all you know by just looking at the numbers. I prefer to look at the user contributions list & feel this gives a good idea of their level of contribution. If they've been active in wikipedia, etc too this is a good sign but it isn't necessary & may not be relevant for wikisource.

I'd agree that some degree of discussion on talkpages & scriptorium on policy/procedures/etc is necessary as we don't want admins that don't discuss things & just go off in their own direction creating (& trying to enforce) their own policies as this will just lead to conflict. As Zhaladsher says it does tend to get you more into wikisource as you see & hear about things needing to be done & start to think about the issues yourself, certainly thats what happened with me. It also tends to ensure that a user has a general idea of the wikisource policies & issues which an admin should be aware of.

I'd agree that there should be a minimum period of active participation in wikisource though I'd be careful not to require it to be continuous participation. Some people can't get access to the internet all the time & many are likely to have other things to do family/moving/job issues/computer problems/too busy/etc that may keep them from editing for long stretches of time. I wouldn't want to hold this agains people so long as the total length of time they've spent editing is sufficient (& edits are useful & they have been discussing, etc). I'd say about 4 months should be sufficient.

AllanHainey 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I just mentioned the edits because the person needs to make actual contributions to WS. Like I said above, it's not the quantity of the edits but the quality. I have so many edits here, but a fair number are just doing minor mindless things which a bot could do (if I could figure out how to operate those). So we need to see what their edits actually were. That's the importance of edits—only quality. And of course, continuous activity might be hard to do. But just occasional work (of a sort of substantial nature) every now and then (hopefully active work, but it can't be too inactive, either) would be good. I think the more frequent a user edits, though, the less time they actually have to have an account at Wikisource, since it's more likely that they won't just disappear at the drop of a hat.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of guidelines I've devised for requests for adminship, based of Wikipedia:GRFA. Of course, all of these are up for debate. I just thought we should try to get this discussion finished:

1. 1. Strong edit history.—This means that the user has made a fair number of quality contributions to Wikisource, including adding source texts and supplementary material (e.g., relevant categories/templates) to the text.
   2. Diversity of edits.—The user does not just work with one subject (i.e., he/she does not solely add sources or solely create templates, etc.), but makes contributions across numerous namespaces.
   3. Discussions.—The user is involved in current discussion/debates going on at Wikisource. The user constantly contributes to the Scriptorium, talk pages ("Wikisource talk:", "Talk:", etc.), and user talk pages.
   4. Follows established Wikisource policy and guidelines.—The user upholds agreed upon Wikisource policies in formatting pages, does not make mass changes that will have a large effect on Wikisource without discussing it with the community, the user is concerned about upholding copyright.
   5. Maintenance.—While adding texts to Wikisource is beneficial, another very beneficial contribution is maintenance at Wikisource. The user should help clean up articles, expand articles, correct redirects, etc.

Again, this list is just to get this discussion finished. Please add comments.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, can't see anything more to be said. Apwoolrich 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

need protection

sorry, new to wikisource. need to protect this please: Press Briefing by Ruben Barrales, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Kevin Marshall, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice on Puerto Rico's Status - MateoP

I've answered this on the users talk page. AllanHainey 12:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

template:DIRMARK T

• Please read commons:Template talk:DIRMARK.
• Please protect template:DIRMARK against moves and edits. Thanks in advance! best regards en:User:Gangleri | T 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications for adminship?

I am a very active admin in en:WP and in commons. What are the qualifications for adminship in this project? I am fluent in English, Spanish and Hebrew, with basic knowledge of Italian and French. My interest in this project would be mainly copyvio checks and general janitorial stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jossi, thanks for your question. Please see Wikisource:Adminship for information about general qualifications (note that they aren't a hard set-in-stone policy, but a good bit of general guidelines).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Any pointers on what or where help is most needed? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest sticking to areas where you are most interested, to what you enjoy reading or to sources about things you enjoy doing. I have always found when I discover an area in need of attention and start working on it solely for that reason, I then find it hard to finish what I started. Once people see where you tend to work in, then they might start to point out anything they know of that is in bad shape. If you are still at a loss try Wikisource:Requested texts or Category:Texts to be split. Be sure to read the Wikisource:Style guide and use Template:Header.--BirgitteSB 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There are relatively few contributors to Wikisource, so anything you're interested in probably needs doing. Particular tasks that I can think of off the top of my head involve uploading and standardising the United States Code (see Titles 1 and 2 for the format used), converting deprecated templates to {{header}} per the relevant entry on Proposed Deletions, transwiki'ing works in Category:Non-english works whose languages are known, et cetera. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanl you both for these pointers. I will star as Brigitte recommends, on the area I quite like, that is of Eastern Philosophy. I started already on Author:Swami Vivekananda. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Language skills of administrators

When Wikisource was one multilingual site, we listed list language skills of administrators there. Should we list language skills of administrators here? If we do, we may have better information on who can coordinate multiple languages. I am asking this question as I am probably the only Chinese-speaking administrator here and there was a speedy deletion of Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (2000) in error, but it has been restored.--Jusjih 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that'd probably be a good idea. For the record I can speak/read only English and Scots. AllanHainey 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a good idea. Maybe for starters we should just ask admins to put Babel templates on their user pages? Dovi 07:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to use babelboxes anytime soon, although I see no problem adding my userpage to the appropriate categories. We could change the list of administrators to reflect such information in table format; for example:

Username	Language skills
AllanHainey	English, Scots
BirgitteSB	English, Spanish (intermediate)
GregRobson	English
Jusjih	English, Chinese
Pathoschild	English, French (intermediate)
ThomasV	English, French
Yann	English, French, Hindi
Zhaladshar	English, German (basic), Latin (basic)
Apwoolrich	English, French (basic)

// [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I, likewise, am not a fan of Babel templates and will fight tooth and nail to keep them off my user page (they're so ugly), but I will add the required categories/information if needed. And I don't think it would be a bad idea to have all the admins list the languages they know and that proficiency.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree Apwoolrich 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the above table to the project page. Please edit any information as needed. For myself, I cannot omit basic French, though still poor. As I looked at Special:Listusers, I just found that User:Brion VIBBER is a sysop who is no longer active after 19 September 2005 and User:Danny is a temporary sysop.--Jusjih 16:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Wikisource:Adminship

Anybody have any complaints to merging these two pages? Unfortunately splitting things between pages leaves new (and established) users only ever reading half of what they should. Convinced they've found an overview, and the overview is simply lame. Merging these two "policy" pages would be a nice way to ensure both are read, updated and widely-known. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev} 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I not sure I follow you; which two pages do you mean? Wikisource:Administrator policy and Wikisource:Adminship ? If so, I think the Scriptorium or the talk page for either of those pages is the better spot to discuss it. John Vandenberg 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Wikisource:Administrators and Wikisource:Adminship are the pages meant but perhaps Wikisource:Administrator policy is a candidate as well. Commons is structured closer to that way: Commons:COM:A... (having everything merged together) I think you'll find, except it has bots mixed in too. I agree that Scriptorium is probably the better place to discuss. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing confirmation discussions

I just archived a successful adminship request... then I thought about archiving the three current (??) confirmations... these all seemed to have sailed through, are they at this point (since it's December) archivable? Also is it time to start the discussions for newmanbe, ThomasV, and Spangineer? Seems like it. If no one pipes up in a day or two I will archive the Jusjih, Yann, and Zhaladshar discussions. I already started the new ones. Revert/fix if I flubbed. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I suppose, I've always assumed that the confirmations were meant to last a month. So I'd support seeing J/Y/Z archived as all successful. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill} 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merged list

If we are going to have a merged list, please make it sortable so we easily group the confirmations together.--BirgitteSB 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, good thought. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Portal:Branch Davidians} 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I personally prefer a separate list (which is much easier to update after confirmations). —{admin} Pathoschild 21:08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

results for Jan...

• I'll archive these later today, and load the new ones, if no one else does... AllanHainey is unfortunately not reconfirmed, and BirgitteSB is reconfirmed would be my read. ++Lar: t/c 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing and archiving... have requested removal for AllanHainey at meta:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • • Er, was already requested, I missed it :) ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • [1] I wanted leave a note here too but the page is write protected, kind regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I or any admin can leave it for you, what did you want to say? :) ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Results for Feb 2008

Two points:

• I think Pathoschild jumped the gun by a day in closing Graffie and Graffie's bot as it's still Feb :) But of course it's leapday so ... :)
• Confirmation spans... the confirmations semm to be jumping ahead a month, is this what is intended? That is, effectively, it seem like they are good for 13 months rather than 12, because the confirmation discussion moved a month. (Feb 2008 to March 2009 or whatever) Or maybe it's me?

Not sure either of these is earthshattering. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem updating the confirmations a few hours before or after the on-the-dot change of the hour. There's no serious likelihood that the result will change, so I think there's no reason to start counting hours. Let's please avoid making every little detail subject to strict inflexible policy. :)

It intuitively looks like confirmations jump a month, but this actually schedules their next confirmations for precisely one year after the end of their last confirmations. If we don't bump them up a month, all administrators are confirmed every 11 months. (This is the way I did it for every other confirmation as well). —{admin} Pathoschild 12:17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Let's please avoid making every little detail subject to strict inflexible policy." you mean like how many language codes we can use? :) Sure, no prob, I'm with you there. As for the timings, well, yes, I am glad you agree with me. If an admin goes 12 months unconfirmed, and then has a confirmation for a month long period, you have confirmations on a 13 month cycle, not a yearly one. Yearly confirmations have anniversary dates that are the same each year, without respect to how long what process steps last, not ones that move forward by a month per year. The policy needs to be reworded to accurately reflect this practice, rather than change what's been done, would be my point. Right now it says yearly, which is marginally incorrect. Probably just a tweak to say "Such a proposal runs for a month and begins automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal ends. The full schedule of proposal votes is available on the administrators page" rather than "Such a proposal is made automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal. The full schedule of proposal votes is available on the administrators page" would sort it. Not that big a deal but clearer. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a little clarification saves a ton of explanation.--Poetlister 12:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified, feel free to tweak further, anyone. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

I don't understand the analysis. It says I've made 1,076 edits (including deleted ones) when I've made 1,400 according to the tally under preferences.--Poetlister 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I raised a similar query with the tool owner; see User talk:SQL --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin and crosswiki unlinked activity

Re:opinion edit, I concur that User:Hesperian or anyone is welcome to vote however they choose, for whatever reason they choose. I also concur that crosswiki activity can be and generally is of interest when considering applications for adminship. But there is no obligation for User:Longfellow to disclose or address the question. He may be standing on his right to not self disclose private information on principal, where there is nothing to disclose or he may be doing so because there is something he would prefer not to disclose, or for any other reason. I support his right to make that choice. Jeepday (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Hesperian, I would have accepted a "I would prefer not to answer." Now, after the "Spanish Inquisition" nonsense and repeatedly avoiding the question, I won't support unless he reveals to a trusted user and that user is satisfied. I don't care if someone has a checkered history on another project, but this immature behavior is not becoming of an administrator. —Spangineer (háblame) 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But what is the question? Reveals what? Satisfied? (define) What outcome? Who is a trusted user? What are you expecting that person to do with the result? Some clarity would presumably help the candidate and the recipient of the information. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

While I see where Spangineer is coming from, I must agree with Jeepday's statement. I firmly believe we should only judge a user based on his/her work on this wiki. Whatever has happened (be it good or bad) on others should be immaterial to our adminship procedure. We have a different culture on this wiki, and we've seen how people who have had issues on another wiki do well on this one, and how people who have done well on other wikis don't do as well here. I think it unfair to our procedure if external activity is utilized for adminship nominations.

But, once an inappropriate question is asked, I do think the way it is handled is fair game for the nomination, as it shows how a user can handle sticky situations that crop up occasionally here. I disagree with any need for disclosure (I don't think mishandling a question warrants such action), but I do believe the fallout can be used in the discussion..—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Bilinghurst: I left it vague because I'm not picky. The question is, "have you ever edited enWP, and if so, what was your username?" Acceptable direct answers are "no" and "yes, but only anonymously" and "yes, and ___ is my username". If Longfellow doesn't want to give out his username, then I'd strike my opposition if he revealed it to a bureaucrat or check user and that user took a brief look at his contributions on WP and reported to the community that didn't find anything egregious (according to said trusted user's definition of "egregious").

I'm less and less concerned about what Longfellow might be attempting to "hide" (actually, I doubt he's hiding anything, let alone anything significant), and more and more about the complete lack of straight-forwardness in this process. A simple question demands a simple answer (even "no comment"), not evasion fitting a politician. —Spangineer (háblame) 14:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This site is part of a larger community, this is generally a good thing; it is largely insulated from matters elsewhere, but not isolated. This fact is directly related to content and accountability. The cultures are different, and so are some practices, but the different purposes are toward similar goals and principles. What people contribute to these sites and the communities determines their level of access, providing access to a history of contributions is regarded as polite. The discussions here contain a link to the SUL in the header, it is not irrelevant or inappropriate to look at that, or request clarification, or ask a question of that information. There are situations where any disclosure would see support evaporate, based on earlier contributions here and elsewhere, such as those decisions made in open communities to take measures to reduce or deny access altogether. This smaller community is insulated; unobjectionable contributions are welcomed, even if there is discord elsewhere, but it is not isolated or "another country …". Users may have good reasons to avoid disclosing other contributions, while others champion that right I remain pretty sceptical, they may be harmless and unobjectionable, or for excitement, and there are reasons that would be obviously unacceptable.

This approximates a general position, this is not a new discussion and it is not directed at any individual. Comments that unnecessarily names an individual account, or includes "you, we, he" are problematic, there are few reasons to do it and almost none to link it. This section opens with a comment on a "right to not self disclose private information on principal", that seems unrelated to any current discussion or question and is very unhelpful, whether it was thoughtless, unintentional or a crass tactic, it is potentially insulting. No one has asked for that and it would be inappropriate to do so. If it is meant to refer to contributions to wikimedia and here, that attribution is "irrevocably released", this allows credit and accountability. cygnis insignis 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd not seen this talk when I made my comment.^diff I'd have likely posted here, if I had. Anyone is free to move it here, if they like. This project should avoid the toxic wiki's issues, and that may simply be what Longfellow's doing. I noted this nom last week and held-back. I'll not oppose unless more comes to light that is of serious concern to this project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Paste of CHECKUSER text, parked from project page

==Nominations for Checkuser==

;Preconditions
* [[Wikisource:Restricted access policy#Checkuser access]]
* [[meta:CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser]] cites ''After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval''

With the resignation from checkuser of {{user|John Vandenberg}}, English Wikisource is again at the minimum number of checkusers required to maintain its individual checkuser capability. I believe that it would be advisable for us to look to appoint another checkuser.