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	Confirmation	Other access
AdamBMorgan	German (basic), Polish (learning)	2011-12
Angr	German (fluent), French (intermediate)	2010-12
Billinghurst		2011-03	CheckUser
BirgitteSB	Spanish (intermediate)	2011-04	bureaucrat
Bookofjude		2011-12
Charles Matthews	French (intermediate), Russian (basic)	2011-09
Cirt	Spanish (basic)	2011-08
Cygnis insignis		2011-10
Dmitrismirnov	Russian	2011-11
Durova		2010-12
Eliyak	Hebrew (intermediate)	2011-09
EVula		2010-12
Geo Swan		2011-09
George Orwell III		2011-07
GrafZahl	German, French (basic), Latin (basic)	2011-05
Hesperian		2011-04
Inductiveload	French (basic), German (intermediate)	2011-05
Jack Merridew		2011-08
John Vandenberg		2011-01	CheckUser
Jeepday		2011-12
Jusjih	Mandarin, traditional and simplified Chinese, French (basic)	2011-01	WMF steward
Kathleen.wright5		2011-11
LarryGilbert	Esperanto (basic), Spanish (read-only)	2011-01
Mattwj2002		2011-09
Maximillion Pegasus		2011-07
Pathoschild	French	2011-06	WMF steward, CheckUser
Phe	French	2011-08
Prosfilaes	Esperanto (basic)	2011-09
Psychless		2011-11
ResidentScholar	French (intermediate)	2011-05
Sanbeg		2011-06	developer
Spangineer	Spanish (advanced)	2011-03
Tarmstro99		2011-02
ThomasV	French	2011-03	developer
Wild Wolf		2011-06
Xxagile	Spanish (basic)	2011-03
Yann	French, Hindi (intermediate)	2011-01
Zyephyrus	French, Latin, Ancient Greek	2010-12
Zhaladshar	German (basic), Latin (basic)	2011-01	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

Angr

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

• Support. Active & no problems. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, no problems. Hesperian 12:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Quite happy.--Longfellow (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with pleasure. --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 'teasy — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support – George Orwell III (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support all OK here. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Jack Merridew 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Durova

admin since October 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Durova will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.

comment—left a note that up for confirmation and had been noted as inactive — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Desysop. Inactive for a year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop Only active here in 1 month of the last 18. Hesperian 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop per John and Hesperian.--Longfellow (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop per policy, inactive appears to be gone, here and everywhere. Jeepday (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• desysop inactive and not particularly a user of tools (see above Admin statistics), welcome back when able — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop inactive, not a big user of the admin tools, of course he can apply again if and when desired. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop, mildly, and simply per inactivity WMF-wide. Jack Merridew 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

EVula

admin since November 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EVula will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.

comment—left a note that up for confirmation and had been noted as inactive — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning support. Inactive enough for desysop according to policy, but still active on other projects. I assume he has email notifications enabled, and would respond promptly if a newbie randomly asked him a question. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop. 8 edits in 18 months. Sysops should be familiar faces who are active, and reasonably up to date on current discussions and consensus. Hesperian 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak desysop If he's still active elsewhere and wanted to remain involved in WS, no doubt he'd be active here too.--Longfellow (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• desysop inactive and not particularly a user of tools (see above Admin statistics), welcome back when able — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Desysop inactive under the criteria, hasn't replied to a request for statement of activity in 13 days, I think we can assume he's not coming back any time soon. Of course, if he does want to return to adminship, that's fine when the time comes. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• weak support per John, and I simply can't say no given the most recent edit. ws has shown me tolerance for gaps here when I'm intent over there and I appreciate that. An un-bit is certainly a reasonable thing, too, and I've no problem with that outcome, either. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zyephyrus

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

• Support. Active & no problems. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Very active and great to see. :) --Mattwj2002 (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Active and no problems. Hesperian 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Highly visible!--Longfellow (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 'teasy — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support – George Orwell III (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Active, no problems. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Jack Merridew 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for adminship

Older nominations are archived.

Longfellow

Longfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

I would like to propose myself for the post of Administrator here, so that I can help this project further. I have been active here since May, and have tried to involve myself in every aspect of the work here. As well as uploading several new works, I have done recent page patrolling, proofreading, fixing double redirects and adding or correcting PD templates, defaultsorts and categories. As a regular on the Possible copyright violations and Proposed deletions pages, I would like now to be able to close discussions.

If fellow editors are prepared to vote for me as an Administrator, I should be honoured to accept.--Longfellow (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what is being indicated by the SUL link above. cygnis insignis 05:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the SUL collision detector link, there is the detail at m:Unified_login#Conflict_resolution — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There ought to be a simple explanation for that. cygnis insignis 16:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is. Someone else (maybe more than one person) used the name Longfellow on other wikis but didn't bother to create a SUL.--Longfellow (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely the same has happened [1] here.--Longfellow (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Which would have prevented you creating an account at those wikipedias. Do you have an alternative (alternate) account for those contributions? cygnis insignis 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I have no account on, and have made no contributions to, for example the Hungarian Wiki, and have no desire to, as I don't speak a word of Hungarian.--Longfellow (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

But what about the English Wikipedia? It shows up as "unattached." Please don't take offense; I find the report rather peculiar and difficult to understand as well. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled. Anyone would think that this sort of thing is extraordinary. As I have noted above, the same thing has happened to User B who is a bureaucrat and sysop on other projects yet is unattached here. Presumably the User B here is someone different who happened to create this name before there were SULs. Other examples are User D and User E who are sysops on other projects. Those SULs are attached here, but not everywhere. And I've just looked at the first five letters of the alphabet, so that's three examples from the first five SULs I checked! The point is that Longfellow is a fairly obvious name, that more than one person might choose independently. Had I realised that it might be an issue, I'd have called myself something really weird that nobody else had ever though of. None of those other Longfellows is me.--Longfellow (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The unattached enwiki account has not made any edits, so is of no importance. I think what some of us are wondering is: Do you have an English Wikipedia account, and if so what is it? We would just like to make sure that any relevant history (arbitration, etc.) is on the table. --Eliyak T·C 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mixed feelings here. Seems like a reasonable question to ask, but also a reasonable question to refuse to answer. Longfellow should know that we have already unanimously elected an administrator here after three arbitrations and a ban over there, so a history over there doesn't necessarily mean this nom will fail. Also I guess many of these concerns would evaporate if any alternative account was confidentially revealed to and vouchsafed by a crat or checkuser. Hesperian 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that if I were an experienced user who had heard of a SUL before I created this account, I would have chosen a completely unused name and we wouldn't be having this discussion! So I'm being subjected to a Spanish Inquisition (and of course nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) purely because of my naivety when I first started.--Longfellow (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Better to directly decline to answer the question, than employ over-the-top rhetoric while apparently dodging the issue. Hesperian 03:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Longfellow, has all ready stated he is not the cross language alternatives on SUL. Hypothetical activity on another wiki under another ID has no impact on current activities here. There is no reason to assume anything but good faith, on the part of this volunteer. We have a long history of accepting behavior on Wikisource as the sole example of expected future behavior here. There is only a single example I recall Wikisource being involved in crosswiki concerns and in that example. the behavior was inappropriate here as well. Longfellow has addressed appropriately any reasonable questions and my advice would be to for him to ignore any other questions about hypothetical accounts on terrestrial, martian or any other wikis. Jeepday (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Longfellow has been asked twice if he has an account on the English Wikipedia. It is not true that he has answered that question. I would be satisfied with "I would rather not answer that question." I am not satisfied with "What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?", and your jokes about martian wikis are in much the same vein. Hesperian 12:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

W:User:Longfellow has no edits on Wikipedia. His edit history here on his homewiki meets the expectations of Wikisource:Adminship, there are no other criteria of importance. His request for adminship is not related to his real life job, his religion, his education, his anything except his edits as User:Longfellow. He has declined to answer an inappropriate question, I can think of 1,000 more inappropriate questions which also have no impact to the adminship request. There are no impediments to asking prospective admin any question appropriate or not, but there is also no obligation for a prospective admin to even acknowledge the question. Jeepday (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

there are no other criteria of importance—that's just your opinion Jeepday. Clearly some members of this community hold a contrary opinion. Hesperian 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did miss, one related appropriate question outside of edits as User:Longfellow, if he had significant edits under another name here, it would be appropriate for those to edits to part of a admin review here. While we don't have much of a sock problem or policy here Wikisource:Alternate accounts remains proposed. It would be good form to disclose wikisource activities, under another ID. Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is to be taken as a compliment. Evidently I picked up on WS so fast that it is as if I had prior experience. Thanks for the compliment. :-) --Longfellow (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This reply suggests that you are new to editing wikis, but that is not true. In fact you have other account(s) on this project and other wikis going back 5 years, right? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• New Question Longfellow why did you choose Wikisource to be your homewiki, and why did you choose to apply for adminship here? Jeepday (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't choose here to be my homewiki because I didn't know what a homewiki was. I found this site because it kept cropping up on Google searches. I became intrigued by it and felt that contributing to it would be a worthwhile activity. It has proved enjoyable - up till now, at least - so I have persisted. This is not the only wiki to which I contribute; I have made hundreds of edits on WQ. I could easily have made more edits there than here, in which case I understand that WQ would be my homewiki, so the fact that it is WS is a coincidence. However, I do enjoy it here and would like to help it in ways that are only possible to an admin, such as closing deletion and copyvio discussions and deleting broken redirects that cannot be fixed.--Longfellow (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Support: from what I've seen, a great contributor. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Longfellow's refusal to even acknowledge a simple, good faith question worries me; I must oppose pending a response to it. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Eliyak T·C 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jeepday (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support – George Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Oppose, based on further comments from FloNight and BirgitteSB (below) since my initial favorable vote. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Jusjih (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral some things to like, some to like a lot, other bits upon which I am cool. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Upon further reflection, while adminship is about use of tools, I am uncomfortable with some of the context of the responses. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment – Longfellow, I've not much reviewed your contribs here, or elsewhere, and no one seems to have concerns about that. I'm the admin here that Hesperian refers to, above. I have a history over there, and it stays there. There are perfectly reasonable reasons you and others might choose 'Longfellow' as a user name, and there are reasons a problematic user might, too. I think the gist of what has a few a tad ill at ease is that en:wp is the eight hundred pound gorilla in all the en:rooms of WMF's activities. You speak English and have no involvement in the the w:Big Kahuna Burger? I can see that, too; it's called the toxic wiki for good reasons. Anyway, I had a messy sulutil:Jack Merridew, but have cleaned it all up by usurping the others. This was all before SUL and the others were created by a well known troll, which might not be the case with sulutil:Longfellow. You might consider a global rename to some name without conflicts; just a suggestion. Methinks you should respond more clearly to cygnis insignis, Hesperian and Spangineer, above. Since my en:bumps-in-teh-road, I've been entirely straight with the wider WMF-community about stuff, answered questions, made new friends, &c. It helps. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Gaining admin is based on developing a track record from collaborating on site and honest communication with other editors. I recently became aware of his identity and past accounts. Sadly, Longfellow has abused the trust of the community with deceptive comments on and off wiki related to this nom. I might have actively ignored this editors return to editing here except that I also became aware that he is trying to put some kind and trusting Wikisource volunteer editors in a bad place with this community by making misleading statements off and on wiki. I've seen this before with this editor and in my opinion it needs to be put to an end now. I strongly recommend that he link to his previous account now and withdraw this nom. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per FloNight. Hesperian 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per FloNight. Casliber (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For two reasons. 1) I've reviewed the editing history as Longfellow carefully and I can't see any need for the extra tools to be assigned to do the gnome work s/he has been doing. 2) The experience I need from an administrator in the areas of the Index & Pages namespaces and then transclusions appears to not be there. (While the past incidents referred to below by Birgitte SB are of concern - particularly socking - they have not played a direct part in my oppose.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Partly because I don't see much call for the tools. The allegations of past socking are worrying, but I don't see any troublesome activity since Longfellow account started in May 2010. The manner of responses to questioning above is most concerning to me: something like a simple "I would rather not disclose that, 'crats agree that this is OK" would have been preferable to such a prickly reply. That said, I do understand why Longfellow would wish to keep the past out of this discussion, and I don't blame him for trying. The manner of response is the problem for me. If Longfellow continues to contribute well, and there is no evidence of misbehaviour here, on on other WMF projects (while other-wiki behaviour doesn't normally concern me, an ongoing predilection for dishonestry, misdirection or abuse of various tools does), and off-wiki in relation to volunteers here, I would certainly be amenable to support a future nomination. However, much as I would like to Assume Good Faith, past behaviour makes me cautious of supporting right now, and any indication of actions unbecoming to an admin between now and a future nomination would cause me to strongly reconsider. In short: continue the good behaviour, and I'll support when I'm sure it's here to stay. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - (as a former admin here I think I have standing to comment) Per FloNight and especially per the lack of an answer to FloNight's question about why Longfellow/Poetlister is deceiving the community. Merely making positive contributions is insufficient given the past history of deception. Poetlister needs to move on from WMF projects (and if they could stop using false identities stolen from innocent females that would be good too) ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Longfellow's past editing

As numerous additional parties besides local b'crats and CUs are have now become aware of that Longfellow previously edited as Poetlister. (relevant admin archives) We are obliged to clarify that we were made aware of the connection just prior to his recent application for adminship and that we allowed the application to go forward with certain conditions set out in the following email:

Hi Longfellow,

Since John forwarded on your request, we have been deeply discussing the issues involved with your running for admin solely on the history of the Longfellow account. We were not immediately in agreement over this and have given a lot of thought to the situation. In the end, we have come to the following compromise solution which we both agree on, and we hope that you will find it acceptable also.

We do not believe that it is possible to indefinitely protect you from your history under the Cato account. We do believe revealing the history of the Cato account now would bring in an unmanageable amount drama and make any adminship nomination untenable. As a compromise we believe we can protect your initial run for adminship from the inevitable drama, so long as your full history of accounts on en.WS are made known at your first confirmation hearing. Given that you are successful, this compromise will give you the opportunity to establish yourself as a useful and trustworthy admin who will be capable of weathering the drama of Cato's history at the first year's confirmation. We have no doubts that the en.WS community will be willing to overlook the Cato history so long as your continued contributions are good. We only doubt whether they can give you a fair initial hearing with inevitable outside pressures that will come to bear on the discussion. By allowing you an initial year to establish yourself, we believe the local community will then have a firm enough opinion of you that they may not be unduly influenced by any external pressures.

If you do agree to this compromise and your adminship is successful, the text of this email will be made public at your first annual confirmation. If at any time before the first annual confirmation, it were to come out that the Longfellow account is connected some other account you have used in the past, a vote of confidence will be started with the text of this email revealed at that time.

So long as you can agree to those two points, you are welcome to nominate yourself for adminship omitting any history outside of the Longfellow contributions and we will judge consensus as though nothing were unusual with your account.

Birgitte SB Zhaladshar

Additional note on Longfellows editing from John Vandenberg:

On March 28, 2010, Poetlister privately disclosed to checkusers that he would resume editing with an account to be called Longfellow. The Longfellow account has not edited from a proxy server.

--BirgitteSB 04:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (posting with Z's approval also)