Wikisource talk:Administrators

What happened, Angela? Sorry to see you go.Zabek 05:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Consider removing inactive administrators after long time, such as six months

Shall we remove inactive administrators after long time, such as six months? Six administrators have NEVER edited here for the past six months. Even though this multilingual site is no longer very active while dozens of language subdomains have broken away, I consider inactive administrators a potential security breach should a bad guy steals their passwords to vandalize here.--Jusjih 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. but it would probably be good to contact them before if we can. ThomasV 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree your opinion to contact them first. As an administrator at Chinese Wikipedia, I have voted how to remove inactive administrators and the majority have considered that administrators inactive for more than 6 months would be demoted if contacting them would get no response.--Jusjih 10:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. I will add a message on their talk page. Yann 12:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We had something similar like this on cs:wiki; but if you contact inactive sysops, it has probably no sense to contact them on their talk pages here - thex do not see them, I guess, it's better to contact them on the pages on en:, de: etc or per e-mail, what we did. -jkb- 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We should try to contact then at multiple locations. I remember an inactive administrator at Chinese Wikipedia who was contacted first and responded to consent demotion to an ordinary user. We now need a written rule to clean up inactive administrators to keep sufficient security.--Jusjih 11:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

admins are supposed to provide an email address to the wiki. I suggest we send them an email and if they do not respond after 1 month they shoud be desysopped. ThomasV 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not do it earlier... I had other things to worry about. I counted 12 inactive administrators. I propose the following : I will send them an email, explaining why we want them to be desysoped. if they did not provide an email adress with their account, I will use their talk pages. if they wish to keep their sysop status, I will ask them to explain on this page why they need it. After one month, those who have not answered will be desysoped. Those who have answered on this page will keep their sysop status only if they are supported by the community. is this procedure ok? ThomasV 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to separate the issue "supported by the community" and "inactive". Let care about inactive administrators now. The former is quite a subjective and contentious issue better dealt with later. Yann 12:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry if I was not clear: I do not want to question the status of currently active admins. My proposal only applies to inactive admins. I propose that an inactive admin should have a chance to explain why he wants to keep his account, if he so wants. people would then indicate whether they support or oppose this, based on the reasons given by this admin. ThomasV 13:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of ThomasV (contact per email, no answer = desysop, answer+wish to continue=then with support of community). But before you write them: at present there is an action in progress, that everybody must confirm first the mailing... - what with this on wikisource? Maybe you must search their adresses on en: etc.? - -jkb- 13:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

you are right: they cannot be reached by e-mail anymore, and I guess they are not likely to confirm their email address anytime soon. I'll see if it is possible to find their e-mail address on other wikis, otherwise I will simply leave a message on their talk pages. ThomasV 13:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

but here in Wikisource the utility EmailConfirmation is not to be found - who can arrange it? It is necessarary to confirm it in every project - I have confirmed it e.g. in de:wiki, but here it is still not confirmed. Who can make it? I don't know how to... -jkb- 14:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

huh? go in your preferences and you'll see a link for confirming your e-mail address. it worked for me. ThomasV 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, as well. Try to contact inactive admins (most aren't usually that hard to find) and explain to them the situation. If there is reason they should keep their status, then let them keep it. Otherwise, it's best to have the status removed. I doubt e-mailing them will work, though, with the confirm requirement that was just enabled, so will have to do this on talk pages.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can help track some down and leave messages on their accounts to help everyone out, as well.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa... I expected to see the message somewhere on the top of recentchanges, watchlist or so, as it is in some other wikipedias (en, de, commons...), where you see it immediately without having to go to your preferences... Thx, -jkb- 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I had no time for that. will do it now. ThomasV 07:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I created template:desysop, and I added it to the talk pages of those admins. please feel free to modify the template if you think it is necessary. I added my signature at the emd of the template, because I thought it was more appropriate to do so, but you may add yours if you want. ThomasV 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The template is OK, I agree, now the inactive sysops should be contacted also either on their wikis or via e-mail (if they confirmed it), -jkb- 16:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone begun contacting them? If not, I'll begin notifying them all on the wikis they're most active on. But I don't want to duplicate anyone's work, so that's why I'm asking.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, why do we even have to notify them at all? The template gives them a month to respond; if they don't even check this wiki that infrequently (once per month), I can't see any reason why they should keep their priveleges.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not tried to contact them on other wikis; go for it if you wish. it might be easy for some of them, but very difficult for others. and none of them has a valid email address on this wiki. ThomasV 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

What shall we do with this drunken sailor??? A half a year nothing happened. -jkb- 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like we're turning into true Wikimedians: we talk a lot but never do anything.  :-P I say we get the wheels rolling on this. I say we start a vote up for the inactive ones where we can register our support/opposition for them in terms of keeping their admin rights or not. Also, it's been a while, but do we have a discussion that says inactive admins will be desysoped? I'd be much more comfortable with this if I knew we had a policy to back us up.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there ever was such a discussion, the only discussion thre ever was took place on this page. I cannot desysop these admins myself, I have to ask a steward. I did ask yann a few month ago, but he seems to have forgotten. I agree that having a vote could be a good thing, as you guys do on en.ws. however there is much less traffic on this site, so it would take more time... ThomasV 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a vote would be the best, and I think it would be even better if we had a policy to back this up. I am uncomfortable requesting sysop status be removed without a reason to show why the request is being made (that is, a policy). Otherwise it seems like, "Hey, we don't feel they should have it anymore, so please take it away."—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, let's go for a vote. it should not be too difficult to organize. will you do that ? ThomasV 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The current vote don't have listed all inactive administrators. I have discovered at least more three inactive admins User:Brion VIBBER and User:Shin-改 in the current administrators list. 555 04:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications for adminship?

I am a very active admin in en:WP and in commons. What are the qualifications for adminship in this project? I am fluent in English, Spanish and Hebrew, with basic knowledge of Italian and French. My interest in this project would be mainly copyvio checks and general janitorial stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Que bueno que entiendas español, bienvenido. Viendo tu historial veo que te registrarte en el día de hoy y ya quieres ser administrador. En realidad para calificar primero tienes que colaborar. --LadyInGrey 02:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hola Señorita en gris. I will collaborate, of course. My question was about the quailifications for adminship. In commons, for example, the qualifications are a deep knowledge of Wikimedia projects, 100 edits and a full featured user page with Babel info. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Any pointers on what help is needed? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

The main criteria is participation. But all languages in which you have an interest have a subdomain. May be you should look there. Regards, Yann 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think here must be understood what Wikisource is. It is not like wikipedia (every language has its own domain) and it is not like Commons (there is one Commons domain for all languages). Wikisource is at the moment a hybrid one: some "great" languages created own domains, the old wikisource is being used by many "small" ones, and it seems to be useful if the admins come from these ones (or if they stay here after "their" language has got an own domain). Jossi should ask in the English or Spain one etc. Good luck, -jkb- 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed admins

Based on unanimous decisions here, I have reported nine admins to m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access and they have been desysoped. They are:

1. User:Dr Absentius
2. User:Menchi
3. User:Samuel
4. User:Maveric149
5. User:Kalki
6. User:Ambi
7. User:Caton
8. User:Maveric149
9. User:Daniel Mayer

We should continue discussing whether to desysop some other inactive sysops. Based on 555's comment above, I am adding User:Brion VIBBER and User:Shin-改 as inactive sysops as well.--Jusjih 06:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal request made at English Wikisource

At English Wikisource, Psychonaut (talk • contribs • global contribs) has made a request to get a block removed from an account here. Please see en:s:User talk:Psychonaut billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked, as there is enough evidence 1 (see section IP logs), w:en:Special:Contributions/Psyсhonaut and w:en:User:Psychonaut there was a try to usurpate the en: account. — Phe 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Desop votes - closing?

Historically it hasn't taken much to desysop for inactivity. I understand that Ooswesthoesbes doesn't support the practice in general as noted Wikisource:Scriptorium#Stale_Sysops; however, it's been going on for several years and was discussed in the past, above, so I won't address that here. In several cases, inactive users have been desysopped with only two votes, including the nom. While low, we aren't a very active site for such discussions and the general premise is that the user obviously doesn't need the bit right now and can ask for it back anytime, so it's low cost. Some of the users may have permanently retired (in ThomasV's case it's at least semi-permanent, unfortunately).

Does anyone object to summarily closing discussions with a result of removal of the bit if the discussion stays open for 30 days with no support for retention? Currently that would affect ThomasBot and Maximillion Pegasus.

How about where there is one or more supports for retention, a close by an uninvolved user or after no less than 30 days?

I've noticed some discussions historically have stayed open for more than a year, which is silly.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Administrators Emeriti

While I appreciate the work these people have done for Wikisource, I think this does not give a good signal. There is no need to create an elite group of users. If they ever come back - the chances I consider small - they should make a new request for their rights, just like anyone else. Therefore, I propose to abolish the "administrators emeriti" group. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ankry, Candalua, -jkb-, Jusjih, Jon Harald Søby, Koavf, Zyephyrus: Do you agree? --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I always wondered who should belong to the group and who should not. So no objections. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping--not sure how important my perspective is but I think it's 100% fine to list who has been an administrator. That's true on a lot of other WMF projects and has real utility if someone (e.g.) expects user [x] to be able to delete things for him. It's not necessarily an inside baseball list of elites but it is part of the institutional memory and has some genuine utility. No harm, some mild good. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Wait--are you only concerned about the "The users below retired after distinguished service as administrators, many because they were administrators in the early days of the project but became too busy with other Wikimedia Foundation responsibilities, they would generally be welcomed back as admins and granted the rights without a vote." part or just the listing in general? In terms of vanity, I think it's fine. As a policy, I also think it's really low-risk but sure, so I'm indifferent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it is just about that part. The listing doesn't bother me :) --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it doesn't really make much sense any more. A year or two after inactivity could make sense, but most of them haven't been active here for more than 10 years. Instead of complicating the rules with special cases like these I think it's easier to just have the same rule for everyone – if you're desysoped, you need to go through another nomination to get the rights. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have appreciated very very much working with these people: I'd like this list to appear somewhere, with some information about what they did or are still doing for us, and with our thanks; perhaps not on the Administrators page. --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, let's keep the list somewhere, but as a general rule we should never grant any rights without a vote or a least an informal request for consensus, and there should be not exceptions. Candalua (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the part about that no vote is required. That way, they are still mentioned separately. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)