Wikisource:Administrators

Current administrators

Administrators are given access for one year per the Administrator 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
BirgitteSB	Spanish (intermediate)	2009-02	bureaucrat
Brion VIBBER			developer
Cowardly Lion		2009-02
Danny	Hebrew	2008-06
Eclecticology		2009-02
FloNight		2008-12
GrafZahl	German, French (basic), Latin (basic)	2009-03
Hesperian		2009-02
John Vandenberg		2008-11
Jusjih	Mandarin, traditional and simplified Chinese, French (basic)	2008-11	WMF steward
Lar	German (basic)	2008-11	WMF steward
newmanbe	Spanish (basic), Esperanto (basic)	2009-01
Pathoschild	French	2009-04	WMF steward
Politicaljunkie	Latin (basic)	2008-10
Quadell		2009-02
ResidentScholar	French (intermediate)	2009-03
Sanbeg		2009-04	developer
Shanel	French (basic)	2008-08	WMF steward
Sherurcij	French (basic), Arabic (learning)	2008-09
Spangineer	Spanish (advanced), Portuguese (basic)	2009-01
Tarmstro99		2008-12
ThomasV	French	2009-01	developer
Wild Wolf		2009-04
Yann	French, Hindi	2008-11	WMF steward
Zhaladshar	German (basic), Latin (basic)	2008-11	bureaucrat

Confirmation discussions

"Administrator 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 adminship for it to be retained. 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 runs for a month and begins automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal ends. Thus, automatic reconfirmation runs on a 13 month cycle. The full schedule of proposal votes is available on the administrators page.

"In the case of an unscheduled (called) proposal, the user may not use administrator access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed. A bureaucrat will eventually archive the discussion and, assuming consensus, request removal of administrator access by a steward."

—Administrator policy (as of 01 March 2008)

A minimum of three established users must oppose below for a confirmation vote to be called. Users are free to indicate support for the administrator, although this has no effect on the outcome. Inactive administrators will automatically lose access unless a majority support continued access.

Pathoschild

status	administrator since 03 February 2006 (unanimous)
activity	active (contributions, logs)
discussions	2006-01: adminship (passed) 2006-03: CheckUser (failed requirements) 2007-02: reconfirmation (passed)

• abstain; this is an example vote. —{admin} Pathoschild 09:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac} 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Pathoschild knows what good interactions we have had.--Poetlister 22:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Yann 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Hesperian 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Keilana 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A useful admin to have around! Suicidalhamster 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - of course! --BirgitteSB 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Cowardly Lion 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Pile on, unneeded confirmation vote that Pathoschild is a stellar administer on this site. FloNight 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• support —Dark ^(talk) 09:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Why not?--Cato 11:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support--Jusjih 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, with enthusiasm. Tarmstro99 14:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for CheckUser rights

The previous request for Checkuser here on the English Wikisource ended unsuccessfully in April 2006 when it was pruned from meta and then Wikisource. It was covered in Wikisource:News/2006-04-19/Local_CheckUser_status_in_doubt.

Foremost in my mind as the reason to have local Checkusers is to allow checks to be run where there are unusual circumstances. For example, I have just unblocked What467 (talk • contribs) when there was a suspicious Zzzzz356 (talk • contribs) also active and doing similar page blanking. I have had to give the benefit of the doubt, despite my doubts, because it isnt worth requesting a meta CU.

Also worth considering is the aspect that without a local checkuser, someone considering using two accounts to manipulate a situation will have less reason to think they will be caught. Having a checkuser who is active in the community will be preventative.

Also worth noting, Lar commented on local CU at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Checkuser_request_on_en:wp_which_included_en:ws, and English Wikibooks (who was also unsuccessful at the same time as Wikisource) have since been successful and now have four local CU. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to be successful, the requirements at m:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser are two candidates with at least 25 approvals. We have enough active users, and I hope at least one other administrator will join this request.

John Vandenberg (CU)

As an active administrator, and as someone who is accessible privately for the majority of the day via email and IRC, I'm requesting candidacy for checkuser. I am familiar with the policy and capability of the tool, having requested public and private CUs on en.wp as part of arbitration clerking and enforcement, and also on meta. In addition to being aware of the privacy aspects, I am technically capable of driving the tool having been a developer of HTTP software, including being a developer of the Mozilla Firefox web browser as the maintainer of the IRIX port.[1][2]. I can present more recent evidence of intimate technical working knowledge of the HTTP specification for anyone who requests it via email. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question I don't entirely understand your example above. What would be your reasoning for running a CU on User:What467? The case that prompted the previous request of CU's was about the posting of content that involved a real life dispute and the WMF had been contacted by lawyers. I doubt they would involve local admins in such things today, but that was some time ago. I believe I have once made a CU request on meta in all the time since, involving what appeared to be good hand/bad hand accounts (it was not). Account B was nominating the works of Account A for deletion and had posted on Account A's userpage instead of Account B's userpage (or something similar). But the accounts you list above have no connection to one another so I don't understand why there would be CU run on them.--BirgitteSB 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  At 05:48, What467 blanked London Convention‎, and Yann blocked What467 at 6:00, who requested to be unblocked at 07:26-33, using the {{unblock}} template.
  Zzzzz356 (talk • contribs)'s first contrib was to blank Yann's talk page at 08:01, and Zzzzz356 then also blanked my talk page after I reverted the users actions. I unblocked What467 at 08:08, and then blocked Zzzzz356 at 08:10.
  In my experience with Wikisource, there is a low probability that two registered accounts will be doing page blankings on the same day, and there is an even lower probability that the second's first action will be to blank the user talk page of the admin who blocked the first account. These circumstances are sufficiently odd that I felt it would have been worth looking to CU data to determine if there are more issues. Prior to unblocking the first account, it would have been useful to know if the two accounts are tightly correlated. If they were from the same IP, it would indicate that the user was a little bit mad at the block and the lack of response to the unblock request, and acted up a bit. Even if CU did indicate that the second account is a sock of the first, if there were no other acts of vandalism from that person, I would still have seriously considered an unblock, as the damage was minimal and the credible possibility that the unfortunate use of sock all stems from an honest mistake that caused an escalation.
  
  Sadly, whether we like it or not, our block log is starting to look like the Wikipedia block log. This is a product of our success. I hope that we never attract the same level of vandals as Wikipedia, and I do recognise that how admins react to vandals plays a large part in whether they come back and repeatedly vandalise, but we also shouldnt stick our head in the sand. The tool can help - especially when placed in the right hands. How it is used is dictated by the meta policy, and I will be regularly seeking advice from local admins, both on whether a CU is desirable and on whether any post-CU action is advisable.
  In addition to being used to protect our own Wiki, being able to run CU means that in the event of a serial vandal, we can share the offending IP with admins on other smaller wikis to prevent vandals moving from one wiki to the next to pass the time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  I am not against us having checkusers so much as am generally cautious. I am thinking right now it would be a mistake to elect checkusers without a first finding consensus on a policy of when the tool should be used and how transparently. I would support you personally as a checkuser. But I suppose I would first like to be reassured that you (and other candidates) understand a checkuser policy in a manner I could support.--BirgitteSB 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  A comment, I think BirgitteSB knows this already but it's my view that any local policy can be "tighter" than the overall policy (located at m:CheckUser policy) but can't be "looser"... CU can't be used for things not allowed in policy, but local policy could restrict CU activity to, for example, require all public CU requests be formatted a certain way. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would be happy to see John as a checkuser if a second good candidate can be found. We had a lot of problems on Wikiquote until we elected two local Checkusers, and we are currently trying to get a third.--Poetlister 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I am the Checkuser candidate on Wikiquote. Local checkusers are very useful and every Wiki should have some.--Cato 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - John is a great guy for the job. - Epousesquecido 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have worked with John several times now and value his approach and thoroughness, I feel he is an excellent candidate. John, please canvass/buttonhole/strongarm some of the good and reliable users here until you can secure a second CU candidate... as if a second candidate is not found, this support vote will be for naught. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• support Excellent user and very trustworthy. —Dark ^(talk) 10:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pathoschild (CU)

I'm an active administrator on Wikisource, and I have experience with checking users as a checkuser on MetaWiki and a steward (see my local administrator, meta CheckUser, and steward elections). I discussed with jayvdb in #wikisource and we agreed on a few ways to ensure transparency (some ideas included requiring public requests and reconfirmation). As such, I nominate myself for the second checkuser required by the checkuser policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:45:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support or Shanel will kill me :) Well if we can't trust our stewards to behave properly, who can we trust? Pathoschild has been a model user here, and has a full understanding of the role of checkusers. —Dark ^(talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oh good, the armtwisting worked! Support of course, since now no one can twist my arm. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Pathoschild stood for CU before. See Wikisource:Administrators/Archives#CheckUser_2006-03_.28failed.29. There is additional background in this news article Wikisource:News/2006-03-30/Voting begins on two for CheckUser access. The vote failed although it had 18 supports and no opposes or (in my view) significant concerns raised, because there is a strict requirement for 25 support votes, as outlined here Wikisource:News/2006-04-19/Local CheckUser status in doubt. Let's make sure that does not happen again this time if possible, eh? Note that it is my personal interpretation that there is not a particular time limit to get to 25 support votes, but it would be good to get there within two weeks if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for adminship

Older nominations are archived.