Wikisource talk:Adminship

From Wikisource

This looks realy great! One small nitpick is that we might say privileges or abilities in place of rights thoughtout the document.--BirgitteSB 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. But in this sense, rights does mean privileges and abilities. It's a common word used in documentation on other Wikimedia projects. But, again, I don't care either way.

[edit] Self-nomination

There is a lengthy discussion about this now on Wikien-l, with horror stories of people becoming an admins pretty well on the back of mass-edits on talk pages, membership of special interest groups, etc, but little real work on actually writing articles! I would like to see the Admins list expanded to spread the load on housekeeping work, but with people who have a wide spread of activity not just bulk edits in non-essential areas.

I see we are now getting people join WS whose names appear on the serious end of WP. I hope they will contribute meaningfully here as well. Apwoolrich 08:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I browsed some of the discussion there. I really don't think the problem WP is facing will affect us here (at least for a very long while). WS is just too small to let users be given admin rights by slipping through the cracks. Since WS is such a small project, we are all aware of who the heavy and medium contributors are. We also know who the new contributors, or those with little experience here are. So when they self-nominate themselves for adminship, we'll know almost right off the bat whether the person is established here or not, and what kind of edit history they have. I don't think we'll have to worry about that for quite some time (hopefully never, though).

It's good to see that some serious WP contributors are appearing here. I'm not plugged in much with WP, but the serious contributors are the ones that we need the most and will really be the most helpful to this project (ideally).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obligations

I don't know there are any tasks that could be considered obligations, although a good faith effort to check the Copyright violations, Proposed deletions, Protection policy, and Requests for assistance since only admins can perform some of those tasks. Perhaps admins are obligated to adhere to the official policies of WS goes without saying--BirgitteSB 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the latter: uphold official WS policies (which we need to now formulate…). That's really the only obligation, along with enforcing community-decided issues. I can only think of those two, but I think the should be added. I'll write that section up some time today.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried righting up the obligations section, but I haven't been happy with anything I've come up with. Birgitte's right, the things expected of admins go without saying. There really seems no point to even say those. I say we just remove the section entirely.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A policy we don't seem to have is ensuring that editors post new documents with the accompanying navigation, author, title, text quality, etc templates. Too many texts appear to be dumped 'as-is' simply properly edited but lacking any information about the origins and the like. This is something the admins should be noting on the texts to ensure it is done. Maybe yet another template:-)Apwoolrich 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)