Jump to content

Wikisource:Administrators

From Wikisource
Revision as of 18:01, 8 September 2008 by Lar (talk | contribs) (→Poetlister: change my prospective vote)
←
←Community page
Administrators
Archives→
→

This page provides information on the English Wikisource's current administrators (see also multilingual admins and the software's list of admins).

See also:

About adminship
Restricted access policy
Administrator's discussion board

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
BirgitteSB Spanish (intermediate) 2009-02 bureaucrat
Bookofjude 2009-10
Brion VIBBER developer, Check user
Cowardly Lion 2009-02
Danny Hebrew 2009-07
DarkFalls French (basic), Italian (basic) 2009-04
Dmitrismirnov Russian 2009-09
Eclecticology 2009-02
FloNight 2008-12
Geo Swan 2009-07
Giggy French (basic), Romanian (basic) 2009-10
GrafZahl German, French (basic), Latin (basic) 2009-03
Hesperian 2009-02
John Vandenberg 2008-11 Check user
Jusjih Mandarin, traditional and simplified Chinese, French (basic) 2008-11 WMF steward
Kathleen.wright5 2009-08
Lar German (basic) 2008-11 WMF steward
Mattwj2002 2009-07
Mtmelendez 2009-07
newmanbe Spanish (basic), Esperanto (basic) 2009-01
Pathoschild French 2009-04 WMF steward, Check user
Poetlister 2009-06
Politicaljunkie Latin (basic) 2008-10
Psychless 2009-09
Quadell 2009-02
ResidentScholar French (intermediate) 2009-03
Sanbeg 2009-04 developer
Shanel French (basic) 2009-09 WMF steward
Sherurcij French (basic), Arabic (learning) 2009-10
Spangineer Spanish (advanced), Portuguese (basic) 2009-01
Suicidalhamster 2009-08
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

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

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.

Sherurcij

status administrator since September 2007
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions
{{citation needed}}. Except for Pathosimpalement. It is the law.--Shanel 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Was helpful in my early days at the project! Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, no problems there. Hesperian 05:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Oppose; this is a very big problem in my opinion. Hesperian 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an enormous problem. So is my opinion of the uselessness of Wikibooks, and my frequently calling certain Wikinews administrators retarded jackalopes. However neither are related to my work on Wikisource. But c'est la vie, I'll simply order a third pike for my gates ;) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 03:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You think your willingness to inject a hoax into the main page of Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether we can trust you with administrative tools over here? There's still only one Sherurcij, right? Hesperian 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do, in fact. My hoax on Wikipedia had absolutely zero to do with administrative tools, on WP or WS. It's completely irrelevant, I'm as capable of inserting nonsense with or without administrative tools, and have never used them to do so. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 06:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That argument is analogous to "the fact that I menaced you with a knife is irrelevant to whether or not I should be granted a gun license. After all, I'm capable of menacing you with or without a gun." Hesperian 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sherurcij said there that he intended to have the thing removed and deleted if it actually made the Main Page; it was merely a test to see if it could get that far. I personally believe his explanation. It's perfectly justifiable not to, and I'm not going to throw AGF and "you're the big bad wolf" at you if you don't, but it is something to think about. In my opinion, the test wasn't that bad an idea if controlled properly (and I believe it was). —Giggy 06:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And if every user decided to do this type of experiment where would we be? Many many moons ago, WP-en decided not to tolerate these type of experiments. I assume that most wikis include this in their unwritten rule book. Unwritten because writing it down gives ideas to uncreative thinking vandals that like to copycat. FloNight 22:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Heh. If every user tried to do this, we'd be in a very interesting place, and probably not a good one at that. Yes, it's an unwritten law (rightly) that gives good advice that people generally follow (rightly) because usually making hoaxes isn't the best idea. But I think doing it now for the reasons given was justifiable. Not necessarily right, wrong, good bad or evil, but justifiable for testing something important in the DYK process. And the test worked. The result is positive. Sherurcij will never do this again, and we move on. IMO —Giggy 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport Is a popular attraction at Sea World and takes care of stuff around dis wikihouse.--Shanel 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my!! Do you understand that Hesperian certainly has the right to be unconvinced that you will make good use of the tools based on those diffs about the incident on WP's DYK. I'm not going to oppose since this is an isolated incident and you do loads of good work here, but please be respectful of users that chose to oppose. Making Hesperian feel uncomfortable about voicing his opinion is not good. FloNight 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt he's uncomfortable, I'm not saying "You're a cockup, everybody else is voting for me, fool", I'm making reference to my playful animosity with those who think my deviance from the norm is out of line, methinks you're just upset because I've already announced my intentions to put your head atop a pole on my castlewall. I doubt any really feel "uncomfortable" because I address their concerns; in fact it would seem more wrongful to not address his concerns. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is what you think, then you're wrong. Seriously. I think that your responses to Hesperian are off the mark and it make me more worried about you having the tools than your foolish experiment. Your reply came across to me as dismissive when he expressed a genuine concern. FloNight 22:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it came across to you as dismissive, then either I failed in my response or you failed in your reading. He asked specific questions, I answered specific questions. I don't see "dismissal" - his question was "Don't you think your actions at WP affect your actions at WS?" and my response was "No, not anymore than I think my actions at WN do". Like WP, WN has several severe flaws, and I do work to try and find solutions to them to make the community stronger, and like WP, that often means running up against tough-nosed security-guard-wannabes who feel the need to strut their power and toss you down a flight of stairs. WS doesn't suffer from the same sorts of problems as WN and WP, though I think I have demonstrated that I am worried about ensuring that texts remain consistent, and if I abandon WS, my 10,000 works don't get vandalised without anybody noticing. The question comes down to "Do you trust Sherurcij to not abuse his admin tools to ban people without merit (check my history of bannings, I'm a firm believer in warnings), delete valid texts, etc", and if you really don't think I can be trusted with admin tools to improve the project, I suggest you need to rethink your criteria of which actions harm and which help a project. The shit-storm raised by my "stunt" in fact does help WP, it's forced the issue of the need for close factchecking of offline sources specifically on DYK articles into the spotlight; I got a 24-hour ban for it, which I'm not disputing (though several others I've noticed are), in short, it did exactly as intended, and was worth the price. It was a textbook case of official WP policy as summarised in w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and w:Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact. History Will Absolve Me, Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I want to support or oppose. I've read the thread at Wikipedia noticeboard, and certainly feel uncomfortable about the incident. If this were a regular user, wanting to become an admin for the first time, I'd be tempted to oppose. However, I think removing the tools is more drastic than not granting them in the first place, and I respect the people who say that Sherurcij does good work here, and appreciate that they are more familiar with him than I am. I agree with FloNight, however, that Hesperian's concerns should not be dismissed. Abstain. Stratford490 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per "Currently, Wikisource grants administrator access to those member who have are known in the community and whose edits and contributions have proved to be trustworthy", Wikipedia and Wikisource are part of the same community, this user appears to be (should be) a trusted contributor w:User talk:Sherurcij/DYK to DYK. The user knowingly created a false article using a profile that has shown a habit of making only trusted edits. The user created w:User:Minnehaha Mouse, in violation of w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to get the article published. That sock profile is now blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia. The user did good work at DYK until a couple days ago when we see this "I rely on the old "omg it was a social experiment!" defense, as I'd been asked how likely it was that false information could be propagated through Wiki.", which is not an excuse when the answer is right here w:Wikipedia:Hoax#Do_not_create_hoaxes "Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results." This editor has proven their trust worthiness, shown the community what they will do with trust when given, and their familiarity with the system. It takes little effort to see habit of working to gain trust (w:User:Minnehaha Mouse) then abusing that trust. Jeepday (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind the vote, but your basis is somewhat incorrect. I did not "create a false article using a profile that has shown a habit of making only trusted edits", I used my own username because as already explained it would make little sense to see if an article created by an anonymous IP survived, we know they don't survive; such articles are typically deleted on-sight. Likewise, I did not ignore WP:Sockpuppet, but if I had listed the DYK under my own name than it would have "poisoned the pool" so to speak, since as mentioned I'm a trusted and known name in the DYK circle with a dozen perfectly legitimate and well-founded articles. The irony is that if I weren't honest about my experiment, and had just created the article with an IP, and not listed it at DYK, it would have survived for years in its fashion, and even if it were discovered, no fuss would have been raised. Surely if I were "creating a hoax" or "vandalising" that would have better suited my purpose of ruining WP's credibility? I purposely put it in the limelight to get a fuss raised over it, to see how the process handled such a case; because there have been none in the past and no likely chance that if I wait a week a similar circumstance will arise.
    • In summary, you may or may not be right to say I was wrong to do what I did, but you are definitely wrong to state that the fact I created it under my own name makes things worse, or the fact I purposely threw it in front of factcheckers. If I put "please remove me" in this month's Collaboration for Proofreading", is that a bannable offence that should see me stripped of my admin tools? Or was it a one-time thing to see whether we need to revise how we handle collaborative proofreading? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      As an aside, I would like to point out that some proofreading projects purposely introduce errors in a controlled manner in order to review whether the proofreading did in fact remove them. This is not part of the wiki culture, and is deemed inappropriate on English Wikipedia, but I hope we consider this type of quality control on its merits, rather than by putting our heads in the sand, and following English Wikipedia. The vandals already create hoaxes with gay abandon on English Wikipedia, and they have done the same here (such as Clair de Salino). Also, newspaper reporters and scholars regularly create hoaxes to see whether the system can cope. btw, I'm not suggesting that BJAODN is a good idea.
      That said, this English Wikipedia experiment was an error in judgement - it should have been discussed privately prior to being done. As it was an obvious hoax (a Colbert hoax even), and Sherurcij used his own name to do it, it is quite clear he didnt intended to dodge responsibility for his actions when it came to light. He clearly misread how unpleased people would be about this. My trust in Sherurcij is not altered by this. I'm hoping he will take this English Wikipedia block as a warning shot, and be a better wiki-editor for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My trust in Sherurcij is not altered by this. John, if somebody were to ask Shururjic how the Wikisource community would react if a trusted administrator were to delete the main page, how do you trust that he would respond? If his response was to conduct a well-intentioned experiment, would that be a breach of your trust? Hesperian 03:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm intrigued and fascinated by this discussion. How does exposing flaws in a system compare with deliberately (or perhaps undeliberately, if it were an accident) deleting something essential? Jude (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've imputed a motive and outcome on only one side of your comparison. You should rephrase as either "How does investigating the community's handling of a DYK hoax compare with investigating the community's handling of deletion of the main page" or "How does exposing flaws in the DYK checking system compare with exposing flaws in main page persistence". Either way, once you treat both sides of the equation equally, thereby removing the answer you're looking for from the question you're asking, your argument appears to vanish. Hesperian 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia admin East718 did recently experiment, foolishly deleting the main page when he could have asked someone or reviewed the source code[1], which is much more dumb than doing it to determine what would happen on the social side of things, as the latter cant be predicted. I was appalled at how silly it was, but he is still an admin because it was silly but not malicious. I would view a similar experiment by Sherurcij in the same way. In addition, Sherurcij is not an admin on Wikipedia, so he is not as responsible there, and hasnt been charged by the community with the task of protecting it.
        But we are talking about a Wikisource action, and at this time I am 100% sure he would tell them to sod off, unless there was an extremely good reason for the experiment. He is much more protective of Wikisource than he is of Wikipedia, and he can probably correctly guess the outcome of any Wikisource experiment he or others might dream up, because the team here is small and mostly predictable. In contrast, the experiment he conducted on Wikipedia is not easily predicted anymore, and he put himself on the line to find an answer to something that concerned him; please bear in mind that DYK is a part of Wikipedia that he has regularly contributed to for a long time, so perceived degradation of quality is something he would "feel" more than the rest of us.
        I dont expect anyone to change their opinion here; I would almost be disappointed if Sherurcij received 100% support. I dont completely trust him when it comes to crystal clean copyright, but he will be the first to say that he is a little avant-garde in regards to the public domain, and he also does his fair share of research into WS:COPYVIO cases in order to try to keep works where possible. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Without reading the archives to change my impressions of Sherurcij's initial nomination I would like to share what I remember thinking at the time. I thought it was questionable if he would be supported as admin because he always seems to find a way to make his opinion and himself more unpopular than I feel is really necessary to get his point across. I think I am rather adept at predicting how much stridency is necessary to make my point and when too much will actually hurt my position. Given positions of equal merit, I find Sherurcij to be much less adept at communicating with others in a way that will gain their support for him and his opinions. This thread here is good example of such stumbling. However as I believe I said in his initial nomination, no one can doubt Sherurcij's dedication to Wikisource. He has maintained a high level of involvement here over a long time period and is a very consistent contributor. My only concerns during his initial nomination were that he might as he had done on occasion, push issues too far for my taste. That he might cause social distress to the community. But my logic at the time was that he can do that just as well as an established member as he could as an admin. (He did not attempt to become an admin until he probably had a longer history of contributions than half the admins.) So I thought that what I was concerned about was an equal concern whether he was an admin or not and that his dedication and long history here would mean he could be a great benefit as an admin. I don't remember how candid I was with these thoughts at the time, but I supported him and shared some reservations in a way that I thought would help him gain adminship overall.

    Now a year later, I find that with adminship Sherurcij has been much more cautious than I imagined he ever could be. For whatever reason it seems that the mantle of adminship has resulted in a more conservative version of Sherurcij. No one has the ability to shine in every aspect of adminship. Sherurcij is patient guide to newcomers and has worked consistently to help drive the contribution of new texts to Wikisource. Also he has shown this past year that he mature enough to recognize the areas where he does not shine and steer clear not only in his capacity as an admin but also in any way that can be seen as the authority from being an admin. Sherurcij has actually been one of more vocal critics Wikisource has had of inappropriateness by admins. And while I don't always agree with his all his accusations, I imagine the admins with the memories of this are more careful in their actions knowing that he is willing to draw attention to anything that appears questionable. Over the past year, he has chosen to attempt to be a model of "uninvolved adminship" rather than to act as an equal opponent to those he has criticized prior to becoming an admin. And I say that he chose to do this because with the high spirits that he has shown over his time contributing here, I am confident that it had to be a conscious effort.

    It is a shame that the timing of this all focuses so much attention on unfortunate results that can come from his high spirits rather than how well he has managed that strong self-confidence and boldness which can often lead him to cross the funny little lines which make collaborative projects work smoothly. This confirmation should have been a chance for Sherurcij to hear how proud the people who originally supported him are of how well he listened to our concerns and took on the responsibility of adminship. But knowing Sherurcij, it does not surprise me that he managed to make it more difficult for himself than I would have predicted it to have been. Those with only a little aquaintance with Sherurcij have good reason to have concerns about his adminship, but I think knowing him better leads to more than enough evidence to overcome such concerns. So I encourage people who doubt him to take the time to look into his intial nomination and read through his talk archives and whatever discussions those notes may lead to and see if you still disagree with me.--BirgitteSB 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You do seem more reasonable as an admin, and you've managed not to implode the wiki so far. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 19:58:11, 06 September 2008 (UTC)
    Nah, no false credit, I'm only more reasonable because Newmanbe is inactive. :) As for imploding the Wiki, I knew I forgot something on my 2008 to-do list. Have updated accordingly. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, looking forward to opposing in 2009. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:43:46, 07 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I would be loath to attach too much importance to the minor incident on Wikipedia. This is a different community from Wikipedia, and hopefully not as much on a hair-trigger about such matters. I've had strong disagreements with Shirurcij, but strong and honest disagreements do not equate to a lack of fitness for adminship. Eclecticology (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I've held off on opining here as there was a lot to review; lots of comments here and at en:wp. I believe I understand the gist of the en:dyk bit and understand how it could be a concern. I don't pay en:wp much mind lately, and never paid dyk any. Could that en:issue have been better handled? Probably. But it is far from the many major issues en is rich with; and it was over there. This is a smaller community, Sherurcij does seem to do reasonable things here and having a fair dose of passion about projects is a good thing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He is a rebel with a cause. - Epousesquecido (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for adminship

None currently. Older nominations are archived.

Votes of confidence

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. [...] 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

Poetlister

status administrator since 05 May 2008 (unanimous)
activity active (Quillercouch: contributions,logs; Cato: contributions, logs)
discussions

Due to recent information that has been disclosed at meta:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato, it is now common knowledge that the person behind the Wikisource accounts Poetlister (recently renamed to Quillercouch), Cato, Yehudi and Bedivere are presumed to be the same person, and there may be more accounts.

There has not been a lot of abuse by these accounts on Wikisource, however as one is an admin, there is the matter of trust to be re-evaluated.

Per our policy for votes on confidence, three people have supported the need for this recall at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Poetlister, where more information and a more general discussion is ongoing. Until this matter has been decided by 'crat Zhaladshar, the admin account Quillercouch is required to not use the tools.

Voting on this matter should be delayed for a reasonable period in order to give the named accounts sufficient time to respond at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Poetlister and/or meta:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't feel comfortable with this person having the admin tools. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo the above, for now. While there hasn't strictly been abuse here, new evidence suggests that this user is not trustworthy as a person, negating their separate user: records on individual wikis. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John's last on ws:s about the photo, here, is a clincher. This seems to be a photo of some young woman used without her consent to perpetuate a fraud; here, Commons, all over the wiki-verse. I have read the meta discussions — at least as of a hour ago. It is damning and it wends its way into many wikis. And I've not seen a peep out of this user about people's concerns. I believe the Quillercouch account should be immediately de-sysoped and the others blocked for good. And if a response is not presented soon, block Q, too. No trust, here. I'm all for second chances, and this one was squandered. Jack Merridew 10:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I supported the candidacies of Poetlister and of Cato elsewhere (although I did not support Poetlister here) out of an assumption of good faith. That good faith was apparently misplaced. Until and unless this is satisfactorily resolved in a way that demonstrates that the multiple identities correspond to multiple real people who are genuinely participants, and who genuinely want to be participants (an outcome that on the face of the evidence so far given seems exceedingly unlikely) in WMF projects, it is time to withdraw that assumption, that sanction. Therefore I support this recall. As with Giggy, I don't feel comfortable with this person having the admin tools here. Or anywhere, for that matter. Although John asked that voting be delayed, I instead suggest that if there is a change in circumstances, (a satisfactory explanation being offered) I will change my vote. Until then, this vote stands. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know Poetlister, but from the overwhelming evidence I cannot trust them. If the actions were contained to one or two names, that would be one thing, but this.... it really makes me feel sick. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need to give Poetlister a week to respond to all this. I strongly believe that when anyone does not offer an explanation for something like this a message needs to be sent that stonewalling will not be tolerated. However the flip side of this is that in order to encourage people to explain themselves we should withold judging them while we are ignorant of their response. So please give this a little time, and make it as easy as possible for Poetlister to feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on this. The best outcome is that we can learn something as project from this situation, and that requires knowing not only what happened but why it happened.--BirgitteSB 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with the above. There's no rush here, and it seems only fair Poetlister is given a good chance to respond and explain themselves. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; I set up this section so it was plain the recall vote will happen, due to having three established members who have called for it, but I would like people to refrain from voting here until we have a statement from Poetlister, and I have good reason to believe a proper reply will come from Poetlister if given a little time. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I don't wish for my initial comment to be considered a vote, but rather a statement of my belief that this forum and this discussion is something that needs to take place and that there is a problem that needs solving here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators&oldid=765179"