Wikisource:Administrators

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:Administrator)
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators
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) 2017-05
Angr German (fluent), French (intermediate) 2016-05 mul.ws admin
BD2412 French (basic) 2016-09 enwp admin, enwikt admin, enwq admin & crat
Beeswaxcandle 2016-09
Billinghurst 2016-08 admin: commons, enWP, meta, mw see all
Captain Nemo Japanese (learning), Russian (fluent) 2016-08
Charles Matthews French (intermediate), Russian (basic) 2017-02 enwp admin
Cirt Spanish (basic) 2017-01 admin: commons, enwn, enwq
Clockery Malayalam, Hindi (intermediate) 2017-05
Dmitrismirnov Russian 2017-04
Doug German, French (basic) 2016-08 mul.ws admin and importer + others see all
Eliyak Hebrew (intermediate) 2017-02
EncycloPetey Spanish (intermediate), Latin (intermediate), French (basic), German (basic), Ancient Greek (basic) 2017-03 enwikt admin, species admin
George Orwell III 2016-12 test2 admin
GorillaWarfare Spanish (basic) 2016-08 enwp admin
GrafZahl German, French (basic), Latin (basic) 2016-10 administers admin bot TalBot
Hesperian 2016-09 bureaucrat, admin@commons, admin@en.wp
Ineuw Hungarian, Hebrew, French (intermediate) 2016-06
John Vandenberg 2016-06 mul.ws admin
Jusjih Chinese (Mandarin, traditional, simplified), French (basic), Korean (learning) 2016-06 mul.ws admin and importer + others see all
Kathleen.wright5 2017-04
Londonjackbooks 2017-03
Mpaa Italian 2016-11 bureaucrat
Phe French 2017-02 mul.ws admin
Prosfilaes Esperanto (basic) 2017-02
Prosody 2017-03
Spangineer Spanish (advanced) 2016-08 CheckUser
Tarmstro99 2016-07
Theornamentalist Spanish (read—intermediate) 2016-09
Yann French, Hindi (intermediate) 2016-06 mul.ws admin
Zhaladshar German (basic), Latin (basic) 2016-06 bureaucrat
Zyephyrus French, Latin, Ancient Greek 2016-05 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

Angr[edit]

admin since September 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Angr will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

Zyephyrus[edit]

admin since October 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Zyephyrus 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.

Samwilson[edit]

Samwilson (talkcontribs) • enWS activityGlobal

I would like to nominate Samwilson to be an administrator at Wikisource. Samwilson is a user of many years, and has contributed diligently, competently and across each of our namespaces. The ethos for enWS in appointing its administrators has been to focus on the characteristics to contribute and to know when and where to contribute, and I believe that Samwilson portrays the characteristics that we desire. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Billinghurst. I accept the nomination; have read Wikisource:Adminship; and if made an Administrator will do my best to further the goals of the project! :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 07:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Zyephyrus (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for missing many edit summaries. Please improve them.--Jusjih (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    I'm sorry I don't do more edit summaries. It's just that a lot of my edits are pretty minor typo fixes, and it takes longer to write e.g. "Added missing quotation mark." than it does to do the actual edit. I'll endevour to be more thorough in future though. Is there a policy or help page that mentions best practice in this regard? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 07:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    If edit summaries is the current measure then there are a great number of users, including current admins, who are in trouble. @Samwilson: not really, for the page namespace, I would consider that the proofread or validated flags are sufficient when doing a page in Page: ns, otherwise I put more general statements/keywords like "formatting", template name, etc. I truly want to see edit summaries for complex events, or where something needs explaining, especially with reversions. I cannot say that I have seen a problem with your edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. Yes, I certainly agree that good summaries are important for most non-proofreading edits. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The measure of suitability for adminship is, "can they be trusted with the tools"; nothing about this editor's edit summaries, or anything else in their editing history, causes me to doubt that they can be. BD2412 T 16:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMpaa (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)