Wikisource:Administrators

Current administrators

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

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

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

•  Support — George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Prosody (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — Ineuw talk 02:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

EVula

admin since August 2012, previously admin from November 2008 to December 2010 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). 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)

•  Oppose — Inactivity is a security risk. Re-confirmation would be easier upon return. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sanbeg

admin since February 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). 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)

•  Oppose — Inactivity is a security risk. Re-confirmation would be easier upon return. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wild Wolf

admin since March 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). 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)

•  Oppose — Inactivity is a security risk and this case is an example of why diligence is key. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Given the circumstances it seems unlikely we'll see them back. Prosody (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

ResidentScholar

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Not confirmed. Hesperian 05:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). ResidentScholar will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
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.

•  Oppose in full expectation Ineuw will double-out-vote me again. AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose. A valued editor, but unsuited as an admin. Moondyne (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
•  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)

•  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)
•  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)

•  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  Neutral --Ineuw (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Neutral--Mpaa (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose —Maury (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Oppose — reluctantly. Anything I'd have to say has been covered already. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per 4 relevant links above.--Jusjih (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

Escalated.[1] Hesperian 01:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I would have preferred to recuse, but the stewards want a local close before they will act. Zhaladshar has voted and BirgitteSB cannot be reached at this time, so I guess I'll have to step up.... Hesperian 05:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Not confirmed. Our restricted access policy states that in a vote of confidence "a simple majority (50%+1) must support the user's continued access for it to be retained." I count 14 votes. 8 support votes would be needed for ResidentScholar to be retained as an administrator. There are only 4 support votes, so ResidentScholar has failed this vote of confidence and is not confirmed as administrator. I will request removal of administrator access forthwith. Hesperian 05:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for adminship

Older nominations are archived.