Wikisource:Administrators

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:Bureaucrats)
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) 2017-06 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
Samwilson PHP, Javascript 2017-06
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 2017-06 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

Ineuw[edit]

admin since April 2014 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Ineuw will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

John Vandenberg[edit]

admin since October 2007 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). John Vandenberg will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

Jusjih[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Jusjih will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have lost confidence in this admin, because he no longer meets any of the five Nomination standards. In particular, he seems very out of touch with the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have been very busy with matters outside wiki with reduced time checking here. Please assure that I do remember here, like checking the copyright discussions with many complex backlogs. Thanks for continuously supporting me with some unique East Asian cultural links.--Jusjih (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Admin rights simply give admin tools, which Jusjih has been using without criticism from the community. If we are going to start modifying our expectations of administrators for the retention of tools, then we should be looking to update WS:Adminship through community discussion. I also think that for a positive aspect to confirmations, especially where wish to recommend de-adminship, that we could be looking to express what is desired to remedy expressed shortcomings.

    enWS community (historically) has expressed a desire for a simple hierarchical rights model ("basic" > "patrolled" -> "admin"), and we rejected intermediate rights configurations (see rollbackers discussion in 2010 [1]). I think that the statement that encapsulated the 2010 position re adminship and rights is …

[enWS is] liberal with Admin privileges which helps foster community, prevent cabals and hierarchies, etc. Introducing a medium-grade rank could undo that, and because of our unique raison d'etre, vandalism is a very small problem...as is admin abuse.

—Sherurcij

As such we either trust people and give them tools to use, or we change our trust model that adminship is more than tools, it is about leading and continuing to lead. I actually still see them as separate. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You might want to reread the criteria as stated at WS:Adminship. It does not need to be updated because the criteria invoked in this discussion are already there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To me, you are conflating "nominating standards" ('at the time' expectations) with "obligations of administrators" (ongoing expectations). My commentary was to more generally address some of our more recent comments in discussions on this page that seem to be raised that sit outside the ability to utilise tools within community expectations. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems you didn't read the whole page. Look at "Loss of adminship" at the bottom. One of the reasons for loss of adminship is that the community loses confidence in them. Nothing you have said thus far changes that opinion, nor addresses the fact that it is explicitly given as a reason for loss of adminship.
In any event, if a person was put forward as an admin on the basis that they met certain criteria, but no longer meet those criteria for nomination at a later date, I fail to see how that would be anything but a problem. Or do you mean that we selecting people to do a job on the basis of criteria that have nothing to do with the job? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not having a specific opinion on your reasons, I am just saying that adminship states the obligations, and if we are saying that the obligations are changed/judged differently by the community then we should have a discussion to change the criteria. In my experience the deadminship for loss of confidence has been for actions taken in contravention of their obligations. PS. Trust me, I read the whole page, know its words and its intent around the time of its drafting; and the commentary here more recently is a change to the past. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

<--
I think for most people the nominating standards for admins are included in the ongoing expectations. Using the tools wisely is an additional expectation that naturally didn't exist when the admins didn't have access to the admin tools. Removing inactive admins for "inactivity" isn't a commentary on their trustworthiness, it's a commentary on their level of participation here. Retaining inactive users as admins makes no sense to me -- it suggests that Wikisource has 30+ highly dedicated, experienced, and active volunteers here and now. That's misleading to more casual and inexperienced volunteers. I think we should avoid misleading casual and inexperienced volunteers. Outlier59 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst and Outlier59 each have good points: community trust is a requirement for sysop nomination; but both leadership and maintained trust (of either procedural or technical aspect—ideally both) is required for continuance of higher authority.

With regards Jusjih I see no reason for changing my existing vote below. AuFCL (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAuFCL (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with EncycloPetey. While I appreciate this admin's contributions to copyright discussions, I think admins need to be actively involved more broadly with maintaining and improving this English Wikisource to be an admin here. Jusjih can obviously be trusted with the tools, but the admin role, as EncycloPetey noted, also includes being widely active HERE in English Wikisource. Outlier59 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Yann (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Jusjih does an excellent job with some tasks that no one else seems to do (particularly with proposed deletions) and I hope they continue to do so. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yann[edit]

admin since September 2005 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Yann will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep BD2412 T 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, but a little improvement of edit summaries will be even better.--Jusjih (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, I will care after that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very little activity during the past year or so here on English Wikisource. We need admins who are active here. This admin isn't. Outlier59 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Zhaladshar[edit]

admin since April 2005, bureaucrat since September 2006 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crosswiki · crossactivity). Zhaladshar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep BD2412 T 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep continuing as an administrator. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose continuing as a bureaucrat for no logged actions after 2012-11-17 with nothing personal.[2]--Jusjih (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAuFCL (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportOutlier59 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Yann (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for adminship[edit]

Older nominations are archived.

Beleg Tâl[edit]

Beleg Tâl (talkcontribs) • enWS activityGlobal

I would like to put to the community a proposal to make Beleg Tâl an administrator at English Wikisource. Beleg Tâl has been with us for three years, and now has ~22k edits. It would appear that they first saw Wikipedia, and quickly saw the light and came over to the dark side.wink Beleg Tâl is a committed WSer with broad editing through our community with reasoned and considered opinions, and is a current leader in the community, guiding new users and assisting in multiple areas. It is time that Beleg Tâl is given the ability to do more things, or do more things more easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right that I started on Wikipedia, but then came over when I realized it was easier posting stuff other people had already written. :p I have read the relevant policy pages, and I accept the nomination. I look forward to being able to fix my own mistakes and I hope that I will be better able to continue building this project up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support precisely per nom. BD2412 T 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 16:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMpaa (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Questions
  1. How do you propose improving Index:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu and the associated The Army and Navy Hymnal as an admin? I think public domain musical scores might be neglected on Wikisource.
  2. Are you acting as an individual person with no alternative usernames in Wikisource or other MediaWikia projects? Outlier59 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. I do not currently plan to continue working on Index:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu. LilyPond is tedious and frustrating to work with (in my experience) and the improvements I have made in that project are as much as I am willing to do at this time. I am not aware of any admin perks that will improve my ability to proofread sheet music.
  2. I am an individual person. I do have another Wikipedia user account, but I abandoned it long ago in favour of this one as it was insufficiently anonymous. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)