Wikisource talk:Administrators

Latest comment: 23 days ago by BD2412 in topic Length of voting period

Guidelines for appointing AdminsEdit

I will start this off. The criteria I have used for suggesting names is that the person proposed had made a contribution adding and working on texts, and also taken part in discussions on Scriptorium and elsewhere about how Wikisource works. They need to have been around for a bit so we have a feel for how they work and also collaborate with others. If they have a similar demonstrable input onto other parts of the Empire such as WP,so much the better. WS is not the same as WP, and in many ways technically more difficult, so we have to be certain that candidates are happy with this.

I don't think that numbers of edits really counts. I have never bothered to check. I am not clear what this statistic means anyway.Is it unique pages of text, or is it every time the user uploads a few words on a discussion page? Apwoolrich 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree: taking part in discussions/proposals/debates (when applicable—if the user does not know much about the topic, then naturally they shouldn't have to discuss it)/policies should be a requisite. This actually gets the user into Wikisource (adding a text and taking part in a discussion really are two different things). It lets other people see that this user is taking the project seriously, and there will be a smaller likelihood that the user will just up and disappear.
I do think, though, that edits should be taken into account. Of course, the edits should be analyzed for they're productivity. That means, I'd rather take a person who has 200 edits which have produced very fruitful results than someone with 800 who has spent much of the time doing minor edits a bot could do.
So, with this in mind, should there be a minimum length of time of active contribution before a user is elligible for adminship? Maybe three or four months? And by active, I do mean active—taking part in discussions, uploading texts, making major changes, and so on.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see much benefit in the number of edits a particular user has as that doesn't really tell you anything - they could all be vandalism for all you know by just looking at the numbers. I prefer to look at the user contributions list & feel this gives a good idea of their level of contribution. If they've been active in wikipedia, etc too this is a good sign but it isn't necessary & may not be relevant for wikisource.
I'd agree that some degree of discussion on talkpages & scriptorium on policy/procedures/etc is necessary as we don't want admins that don't discuss things & just go off in their own direction creating (& trying to enforce) their own policies as this will just lead to conflict. As Zhaladsher says it does tend to get you more into wikisource as you see & hear about things needing to be done & start to think about the issues yourself, certainly thats what happened with me. It also tends to ensure that a user has a general idea of the wikisource policies & issues which an admin should be aware of.
I'd agree that there should be a minimum period of active participation in wikisource though I'd be careful not to require it to be continuous participation. Some people can't get access to the internet all the time & many are likely to have other things to do family/moving/job issues/computer problems/too busy/etc that may keep them from editing for long stretches of time. I wouldn't want to hold this agains people so long as the total length of time they've spent editing is sufficient (& edits are useful & they have been discussing, etc). I'd say about 4 months should be sufficient.
AllanHainey 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, I just mentioned the edits because the person needs to make actual contributions to WS. Like I said above, it's not the quantity of the edits but the quality. I have so many edits here, but a fair number are just doing minor mindless things which a bot could do (if I could figure out how to operate those). So we need to see what their edits actually were. That's the importance of edits—only quality. And of course, continuous activity might be hard to do. But just occasional work (of a sort of substantial nature) every now and then (hopefully active work, but it can't be too inactive, either) would be good. I think the more frequent a user edits, though, the less time they actually have to have an account at Wikisource, since it's more likely that they won't just disappear at the drop of a hat.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a list of guidelines I've devised for requests for adminship, based of Wikipedia:GRFA. Of course, all of these are up for debate. I just thought we should try to get this discussion finished:
    1. Strong edit history.—This means that the user has made a fair number of quality contributions to Wikisource, including adding source texts and supplementary material (e.g., relevant categories/templates) to the text.
    2. Diversity of edits.—The user does not just work with one subject (i.e., he/she does not solely add sources or solely create templates, etc.), but makes contributions across numerous namespaces.
    3. Discussions.—The user is involved in current discussion/debates going on at Wikisource. The user constantly contributes to the Scriptorium, talk pages ("Wikisource talk:", "Talk:", etc.), and user talk pages.
    4. Follows established Wikisource policy and guidelines.—The user upholds agreed upon Wikisource policies in formatting pages, does not make mass changes that will have a large effect on Wikisource without discussing it with the community, the user is concerned about upholding copyright.
    5. Maintenance.—While adding texts to Wikisource is beneficial, another very beneficial contribution is maintenance at Wikisource. The user should help clean up articles, expand articles, correct redirects, etc.
Again, this list is just to get this discussion finished. Please add comments.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, can't see anything more to be said. Apwoolrich 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

need protectionEdit

sorry, new to wikisource. need to protect this please: Press Briefing by Ruben Barrales, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Kevin Marshall, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice on Puerto Rico's Status - MateoP

I've answered this on the users talk page. AllanHainey 12:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template:DIRMARK TEdit

Qualifications for adminship?Edit

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@ 05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jossi, thanks for your question. Please see Wikisource:Adminship for information about general qualifications (note that they aren't a hard set-in-stone policy, but a good bit of general guidelines).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Any pointers on what or where help is most needed? ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest sticking to areas where you are most interested, to what you enjoy reading or to sources about things you enjoy doing. I have always found when I discover an area in need of attention and start working on it solely for that reason, I then find it hard to finish what I started. Once people see where you tend to work in, then they might start to point out anything they know of that is in bad shape. If you are still at a loss try Wikisource:Requested texts or Category:Texts to be split. Be sure to read the Wikisource:Style guide and use Template:Header.--BirgitteSB 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are relatively few contributors to Wikisource, so anything you're interested in probably needs doing. Particular tasks that I can think of off the top of my head involve uploading and standardising the United States Code (see Titles 1 and 2 for the format used), converting deprecated templates to {{header}} per the relevant entry on Proposed Deletions, transwiki'ing works in Category:Non-english works whose languages are known, et cetera. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanl you both for these pointers. I will star as Brigitte recommends, on the area I quite like, that is of Eastern Philosophy. I started already on Author:Swami Vivekananda. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language skills of administratorsEdit

When Wikisource was one multilingual site, we listed list language skills of administrators there. Should we list language skills of administrators here? If we do, we may have better information on who can coordinate multiple languages. I am asking this question as I am probably the only Chinese-speaking administrator here and there was a speedy deletion of Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (2000) in error, but it has been restored.--Jusjih 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that'd probably be a good idea. For the record I can speak/read only English and Scots. AllanHainey 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly a good idea. Maybe for starters we should just ask admins to put Babel templates on their user pages? Dovi 07:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't intend to use babelboxes anytime soon, although I see no problem adding my userpage to the appropriate categories. We could change the list of administrators to reflect such information in table format; for example:

Username Language skills
AllanHainey English, Scots
BirgitteSB English, Spanish (intermediate)
GregRobson English
Jusjih English, Chinese
Pathoschild English, French (intermediate)
ThomasV English, French
Yann English, French, Hindi
Zhaladshar English, German (basic), Latin (basic)
Apwoolrich English, French (basic)

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, likewise, am not a fan of Babel templates and will fight tooth and nail to keep them off my user page (they're so ugly), but I will add the required categories/information if needed. And I don't think it would be a bad idea to have all the admins list the languages they know and that proficiency.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree Apwoolrich 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am adding the above table to the project page. Please edit any information as needed. For myself, I cannot omit basic French, though still poor. As I looked at Special:Listusers, I just found that User:Brion VIBBER is a sysop who is no longer active after 19 September 2005 and User:Danny is a temporary sysop.--Jusjih 16:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Wikisource:AdminshipEdit

Anybody have any complaints to merging these two pages? Unfortunately splitting things between pages leaves new (and established) users only ever reading half of what they should. Convinced they've found an overview, and the overview is simply lame. Merging these two "policy" pages would be a nice way to ensure both are read, updated and widely-known. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I not sure I follow you; which two pages do you mean? Wikisource:Administrator policy and Wikisource:Adminship ? If so, I think the Scriptorium or the talk page for either of those pages is the better spot to discuss it. John Vandenberg 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that Wikisource:Administrators and Wikisource:Adminship are the pages meant but perhaps Wikisource:Administrator policy is a candidate as well. Commons is structured closer to that way: Commons:COM:A... (having everything merged together) I think you'll find, except it has bots mixed in too. I agree that Scriptorium is probably the better place to discuss. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing confirmation discussionsEdit

I just archived a successful adminship request... then I thought about archiving the three current (??) confirmations... these all seemed to have sailed through, are they at this point (since it's December) archivable? Also is it time to start the discussions for newmanbe, ThomasV, and Spangineer? Seems like it. If no one pipes up in a day or two I will archive the Jusjih, Yann, and Zhaladshar discussions. I already started the new ones. Revert/fix if I flubbed. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like you, I suppose, I've always assumed that the confirmations were meant to last a month. So I'd support seeing J/Y/Z archived as all successful. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merged listEdit

If we are going to have a merged list, please make it sortable so we easily group the confirmations together.--BirgitteSB 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hrm, good thought. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Portal:Branch Davidians 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, but I personally prefer a separate list (which is much easier to update after confirmations). —{admin} Pathoschild 21:08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

results for Jan...Edit

  • I'll archive these later today, and load the new ones, if no one else does... AllanHainey is unfortunately not reconfirmed, and BirgitteSB is reconfirmed would be my read. ++Lar: t/c 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results for Feb 2008Edit

Two points:

  • I think Pathoschild jumped the gun by a day in closing Graffie and Graffie's bot as it's still Feb :) But of course it's leapday so ... :)
  • Confirmation spans... the confirmations semm to be jumping ahead a month, is this what is intended? That is, effectively, it seem like they are good for 13 months rather than 12, because the confirmation discussion moved a month. (Feb 2008 to March 2009 or whatever) Or maybe it's me?

Not sure either of these is earthshattering. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no problem updating the confirmations a few hours before or after the on-the-dot change of the hour. There's no serious likelihood that the result will change, so I think there's no reason to start counting hours. Let's please avoid making every little detail subject to strict inflexible policy. :)
It intuitively looks like confirmations jump a month, but this actually schedules their next confirmations for precisely one year after the end of their last confirmations. If we don't bump them up a month, all administrators are confirmed every 11 months. (This is the way I did it for every other confirmation as well). —{admin} Pathoschild 12:17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Let's please avoid making every little detail subject to strict inflexible policy." you mean like how many language codes we can use? :) Sure, no prob, I'm with you there. As for the timings, well, yes, I am glad you agree with me. If an admin goes 12 months unconfirmed, and then has a confirmation for a month long period, you have confirmations on a 13 month cycle, not a yearly one. Yearly confirmations have anniversary dates that are the same each year, without respect to how long what process steps last, not ones that move forward by a month per year. The policy needs to be reworded to accurately reflect this practice, rather than change what's been done, would be my point. Right now it says yearly, which is marginally incorrect. Probably just a tweak to say "Such a proposal runs for a month and begins automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal ends. The full schedule of proposal votes is available on the administrators page" rather than "Such a proposal is made automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal. The full schedule of proposal votes is available on the administrators page" would sort it. Not that big a deal but clearer. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, a little clarification saves a ton of explanation.--Poetlister 12:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clarified, feel free to tweak further, anyone. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't understand the analysis. It says I've made 1,076 edits (including deleted ones) when I've made 1,400 according to the tally under preferences.--Poetlister 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I raised a similar query with the tool owner; see User talk:SQL --John Vandenberg (chat) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin and crosswiki unlinked activityEdit

Re:opinion edit, I concur that User:Hesperian or anyone is welcome to vote however they choose, for whatever reason they choose. I also concur that crosswiki activity can be and generally is of interest when considering applications for adminship. But there is no obligation for User:Longfellow to disclose or address the question. He may be standing on his right to not self disclose private information on principal, where there is nothing to disclose or he may be doing so because there is something he would prefer not to disclose, or for any other reason. I support his right to make that choice. Jeepday (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like Hesperian, I would have accepted a "I would prefer not to answer." Now, after the "Spanish Inquisition" nonsense and repeatedly avoiding the question, I won't support unless he reveals to a trusted user and that user is satisfied. I don't care if someone has a checkered history on another project, but this immature behavior is not becoming of an administrator. —Spangineer (háblame) 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But what is the question? Reveals what? Satisfied? (define) What outcome? Who is a trusted user? What are you expecting that person to do with the result? Some clarity would presumably help the candidate and the recipient of the information. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I see where Spangineer is coming from, I must agree with Jeepday's statement. I firmly believe we should only judge a user based on his/her work on this wiki. Whatever has happened (be it good or bad) on others should be immaterial to our adminship procedure. We have a different culture on this wiki, and we've seen how people who have had issues on another wiki do well on this one, and how people who have done well on other wikis don't do as well here. I think it unfair to our procedure if external activity is utilized for adminship nominations.
But, once an inappropriate question is asked, I do think the way it is handled is fair game for the nomination, as it shows how a user can handle sticky situations that crop up occasionally here. I disagree with any need for disclosure (I don't think mishandling a question warrants such action), but I do believe the fallout can be used in the discussion..—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re Bilinghurst: I left it vague because I'm not picky. The question is, "have you ever edited enWP, and if so, what was your username?" Acceptable direct answers are "no" and "yes, but only anonymously" and "yes, and ___ is my username". If Longfellow doesn't want to give out his username, then I'd strike my opposition if he revealed it to a bureaucrat or check user and that user took a brief look at his contributions on WP and reported to the community that didn't find anything egregious (according to said trusted user's definition of "egregious").
I'm less and less concerned about what Longfellow might be attempting to "hide" (actually, I doubt he's hiding anything, let alone anything significant), and more and more about the complete lack of straight-forwardness in this process. A simple question demands a simple answer (even "no comment"), not evasion fitting a politician. —Spangineer (háblame) 14:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This site is part of a larger community, this is generally a good thing; it is largely insulated from matters elsewhere, but not isolated. This fact is directly related to content and accountability. The cultures are different, and so are some practices, but the different purposes are toward similar goals and principles. What people contribute to these sites and the communities determines their level of access, providing access to a history of contributions is regarded as polite. The discussions here contain a link to the SUL in the header, it is not irrelevant or inappropriate to look at that, or request clarification, or ask a question of that information. There are situations where any disclosure would see support evaporate, based on earlier contributions here and elsewhere, such as those decisions made in open communities to take measures to reduce or deny access altogether. This smaller community is insulated; unobjectionable contributions are welcomed, even if there is discord elsewhere, but it is not isolated or "another country …". Users may have good reasons to avoid disclosing other contributions, while others champion that right I remain pretty sceptical, they may be harmless and unobjectionable, or for excitement, and there are reasons that would be obviously unacceptable.
This approximates a general position, this is not a new discussion and it is not directed at any individual. Comments that unnecessarily names an individual account, or includes "you, we, he" are problematic, there are few reasons to do it and almost none to link it. This section opens with a comment on a "right to not self disclose private information on principal", that seems unrelated to any current discussion or question and is very unhelpful, whether it was thoughtless, unintentional or a crass tactic, it is potentially insulting. No one has asked for that and it would be inappropriate to do so. If it is meant to refer to contributions to wikimedia and here, that attribution is "irrevocably released", this allows credit and accountability. cygnis insignis 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd not seen this talk when I made my comment.diff I'd have likely posted here, if I had. Anyone is free to move it here, if they like. This project should avoid the toxic wiki's issues, and that may simply be what Longfellow's doing. I noted this nom last week and held-back. I'll not oppose unless more comes to light that is of serious concern to this project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paste of CHECKUSER text, parked from project pageEdit

==Nominations for Checkuser==

* [[Wikisource:Restricted access policy#Checkuser access]]
* [[meta:CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser]] cites ''After gaining consensus 
(at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice 
elections) in their local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval''

With the resignation from checkuser of {{user|John Vandenberg}}, English Wikisource is 
again at the minimum number of checkusers required to maintain its individual checkuser 
capability. I believe that it would be advisable for us to look to appoint another 

Using the toolsEdit

There is some conversation on the project page about admin use of tools. I felt the need to respond and this is a better place then there for the conversation. Unlike the other place, use of the tools or need for them has never been a criteria for the granting or keeping of them. Per Wikisource:Adminship "Currently, Wikisource grants administrator access to those members who are known in the community and whose edits and contributions have proven trustworthy." Additionally per Wikisource:Adminship#Inactive_admins the rational for removal is security concerns, nothing else.

IMHO, we give the tools to people who we believe will use them appropriately when the need arises. If a person has the tools and never uses them, that is fine. We don’t have schedules or requirements for an admin to do anything. If a person with admin tools looks at task and decides they can make an action that is indicative of what the community would approve of, then they do it. If not they should hold off making the action. When it comes to using the tools, less is better. We are all volunteers, every day we choose to come back and improve the project, taking away tools based on their use is only effective when you have a limited supply of tools or an excess of volunteers. I am not aware that we have either of those… JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)

I'm afraid there is a disconnect between what is stated (and further linked-to inline) in our Inactive Admins section and what the full policy for de-sysop-ing actual is if that link was followed back to MetaWiki. The relevant text found there is as follows:
Any sysop inactive on Meta will be desysopped. "Inactivity" is normally defined as fewer than 10 logged [Admin] actions in the past six months. Desysopping is formally undertaken at Removal. Users who are desysopped may re-apply through the regular avenue.
Removal criteria
  1. Users who have made fewer than ten edits in the six months immediately prior to the designated removal date (April 1 or October 1) are desysopped without notice.
  2. Users who have made more than ten edits but fewer than ten actions requiring admin privileges in the same period are given a week to indicate they would like to retain their access. Users in this category are to be notified on the first day, and adminship is removed without notice on the seventh day if there is no response.

Please note: their "designation dates" appear to be on assigned cycles while our's depend on the month first inducted as an Admin. then as reviewed per year based upon that month.
Also note: "we" say less than 50 edits in the last YEAR while "they" say more than 10 edits but less than 10 [logged Admin] actions in the last SIX MONTHS as the triggers.

Now that I realize what we state on our Inactive Admin section is not the entire policy it claims to adopt from Meta, I can see why this is another issue around here. Personally, I think the full Meta policy, in conjunction with our current yearly, review makes far more sense to use for a trigger in our case. If one cannot find at least 10 things that needed fixing around here needed to reach the 10 logged admin action threshold in a whole year, never mind in six months, then I say at least humor us with some Admin work in that seven day grace period for Chri' sake before you get auto-desysoped!!. No response of course would be the same as goodbye Admin bit. "Welcome Backs" could be just as easily done as they are now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a further problem in that not all the admin tools that are given to us are logged in the Sysops statistics. For example, moving a page without leaving a redirect, editing other users' JS files, rollback, and view unwatched pages. I having been using the statistics as a proxy when voting neutral, but valuable work may well be being done that I would only see if I went through the contributions list in fine detail. This is something I do at initial nomination, but haven't done at confirmation. I need to think through all this a little more. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if I would consider those Admin tools though I admit moving without redirect probably should be if it isn't counted somehow already (doesn't that delete the original page in the execution?). Rollback just makes undoing more than one edit plausable and, as far as I know, the other two can be done by anyone dedicated enough to warrant it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linked Meta policy for Inactive AdminsEdit

I have looked into the discrepancy between the policy and Wikisource:Restricted access policy the note linking to meta at Wikisource:Adminship. The note with the link to meta dates to the original approval of the page in 2006. The version from May 2006 it is word for word (and link for link) identical with the current version. Meta's policy on May 5 2006 reads simply: "Any sysop inactive on meta for a full year will be de-sysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way."

In hindsight, it was rather poorly thought-out for us to approve the wording with a deference and link to Meta back in 2006. But the policy, as it was approved at the time, was unambiguously meant to be 6 months and less than 50 edits in the past year. I don't think it matters much where the bar is set, so much as that it is set somewhere clear. Wherever the "Goldilocks bar" really is for this issue does not really seem to be important to me. If people keep the rights for an extra year before hitting a "too loose bar", or if they have to re-apply for the rights because of a "too tight bar", either way it costs seem very minimal. On one hand, I would argue that even an optimal change is not worth the work to establish consensus. On the other hand, if even two people will feel empowered to be able to put their own stamp on one of the many things that were codified in 2006, this should be ( final last words ) a rather bloodless change that the en.WS community of 2013 can own. As someone with a foot in both communities, I can only recommend that we all strive to do a better job of imagining how en.WS 2019 will be interpreting (or changing!) our consensus when we codify policies today.

Either way, I think we should remove the ill-advised deference to Meta for clarity's sake. And if en.WS 2013 does go on to make a mark on this policy, please, let us not simply copy over the current fad from Meta this time! I am open to supporting a change in the terms of inactivity to anything reasonable, but I would oppose adopting Meta's current policy on principle. We've grown beyond that. If we are going bother to debate a change, let the change say something about who our community is and what we value in admins.--BirgitteSB 04:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BirgitteSB you are so right, such a storm over something where we have such an agreement on the principle anyway …
  • The reference to meta utilised the word "whereby" and seemed to be specific that it was about removing inactive users. Otherwise, I am not certain that we wish to tie ourselves to a potentially moving set of criteria at meta. Really it is now mostly a historical statement to say that our policy is loosely based on the generic WMF policy for adminship, with some local tweaking.
  • We have clearly been using the six month criteria for our measure of adminship activity, and even if it states four months on another page, once we prescribed and undertook a practice of the longer term, it became the measure. Accordingly, I have changed Wikisource:Restricted access policy to say six months. Among us we cannot demonstrate that it is not a practical measure, and there has been neither discussion or evidence to the contrary.
  • Either way, all admins sit through a confirmation process, and the activity vs inactivity measure just changes the way we count, and move to a formal process of desysop, so it seems a nonsense to get our collective knickers in such a knot. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree with you both about dropping the Meta deference. It was handy to refer to Meta when we first set up the inactivity boundaries, but it is no longer necessary, and causing a disproportionately-sized headache. EVula // talk // // 06:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So no trigger for logged Admin actions at all? Here - take the bit, finish your project and just come back to add to it / tweak it 50 times a year and never mind the rest? Thanks I got a better picture now - I'll just ignore the shaded part when checking the 3mo, 6mo & 1yr statistics from now on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone can be active here without constantly logging admin actions. Since coming back four months ago, I've logged exactly four admin actions (and two of those were from taking care of a cross-wiki spammer, whom I saw on another project I'm an admin at and so I went to all my other admin projects out of due diligence [I've blocked him four times total]). But I've only got a whopping 12 logged actions (and 15 edits to the MediaWiki namespace) across the few years I was an admin, off and on. That was actually the problem I had with Meta back in the day (as a bureaucrat): I would swing by every once and a while and check RC, but any vandalism got dealt with immediately by other people, and name change requests were taken care of before I could get to them. That was hardly my fault (I mean, I do have a life outside of the WMF projects), but it still looked like I wasn't doing anything. As long as someone is at least around, it is reasonable to assume that they could (and would) step in as an admin if necessary; we shouldn't remove bits just because they haven't found anything to do.
Sorry to use myself as an example, but I'm egotistical enough to make everything about me. ;) EVula // talk // // 17:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support a change to consider logged admin actions. I would even would support a change to setting the bar a point that I may have failed at some point in the past six years. But this would in fact be a change. I feel badly that you were confused over the poor wording that I supported adopting as policy years ago, but it is what it is. It is obvious you feel strongly about this. Since I really do not, could you explain what underlies your emphasis on this issue? Do you hope that changing this bar will result in existing admins being more active than they would otherwise? Do you worry that people are less willing to bring on new admins when our it seems there are "plenty" per the list filled with less than active admins? Do you feel we risk becoming hide-bound with so many admins whose peak activity was so long ago diluting the empowerment of new recruits? Do you worry about security of the less active accounts? Something else I can't imagine?--BirgitteSB 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not that I have strong will to change what even I admit is working just fine - or that I think any different than EVula does. Its just that rules are rules and if the wording or linkage was wrong 'its shame on us' & nobody else. Period.

Lets clean it up by explaining how our policy differs from the norm (Meta), what the specific triggers and time periods are and why folks shouldn't read into the shaded area provided in the 3mo, 6mo, 1yr tables at the top. Pages outlining our policies should be marked as official policies at the top before the header; pages citing policy should not attempt to paraphrase that policy but simply link to it (even better - transclude the relevant section in from the official page). This way, confusion like this is less likely to happen again and if it does it will be uniform not layered as it seemed to be in this instance. While I remained concerned that our rolls are padded with Admins that really are not doing Admin-ish things, I'm only being a pain here to make a point on how outdated/poor this particular policy seemed to be (& have it stick). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It sounds like we are for the most part in agreement, that our rules are ours and Meta’s are theirs. It is time to remove the link and references to meta from our admin policy. As for changing our rules seems like there is not sufficient consensus for that at the current time. But of course bringing it up as a separate discussion is always and option. Jeepday (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm made a small change[2] based on what we all agree upon here. Further changes can of course be made, but I'm not sure if anyone is advocating that at this stage. Hesperian 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm looking for clarity so that might entail a change. Again, if the definition is ....
  • An "inactive administrator" is one who has not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year.
... someone please explain to me why the not edited during the past six months is mentioned at all if the trigger is really less than 50 edits in the last year (i.e. edits since the last review and confirmation)? So a history of 72 edits during the 9th month removed from the next review still qualifies in spite of the fact that the 6 months immediately before the next review no editing took place. Is my confusion more clear? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would we even need a definition of "inactive", when, according to the {{admin confirmation}} template, active versus inactive translates into

"... will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority."


"... will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access."

These sound impressively different but in fact they lead always to identical outcomes, except for confirmations that receive fewer than six votes, which never happens these days. That template is the most visible explication of our policy, and in my opinion has the strongest claim for recognition as our real, ongoing, community-endorsed policy, as opposed to something written down on a policy page in 2006 and rarely looked at since. So as far as I can tell, our policy boils down to "confirmation is decided by simple majority whether you're active or not". Hesperian 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<chuckle> Well thanks for jumping ahead :) THAT was where I eventually wanted to get to.
Why pretend that the given triggers are "in stone" when they are almost always ignored, explained away or just deemed not applicable and the true test comes down to annual community consesnsus anyway? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I don't think that is exactly accurate. Never has their been a vote of confidence on an issue of inactivity. When an admin comes up who meet the inactive criteria, we do not call for consensus on the matter as we do when we have thee vote of no confidence. We do not announce on the Scriptorium that people should review whether Foobar is inactive. We have never de-sysoped any admin for inactivity that did not meet the objective criteria. That some people leave comment on the auto-confirms is irrelevant to the automatic outcome. Either the outcome is automatic or three people express no confidence pulling the admin out of the auto-confirm stage and into a full vote of no confidence. Then a formal call for consensus is made and a note is placed in the Scriptorium.
The annual community responses have not differed from the confirmations, only because those people who have insisted on commenting in the auto-confirms have invariably chosen to align their judgement with the policy. I would much, much rather see us set a different objective criteria for inactivity, whatever that criteria might change too, than allow for the possibility of such politics were inactivity for Foo is set at a different level than inactivity for Bar. Not that I think this would be anyone's intentional aim, but humans are irrational and not so self-aware as they like to imagine. Making inactivity status an admin by admin judgement of consensus is a nightmare of "If by whiskey" (I misspoke, I mean defining inactivity) arguments every month. It is destined to become political cover for people who don't wish to (or are unable to) articulate why they dislike the idea of Foobar remaining an admin. I am strongly opposed to doing away with an objective policy to define "Inactive".--BirgitteSB 06:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor tweak to inactive Criteria?Edit

In this edit GO3 questions An "inactive administrator" is one who has not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year.. Notice the AND that ties the two criteria. This is actually a fairly new change, as late as Feb 2012 the language was "An inactive user is one who has not edited during the past four months.". I personally like the current language better, but I think the AND connector should be OR to more accurately represent my perception of what has been the community consensus for the last few years. So the criteria becomes An "inactive administrator" is one who has not edited during the past six months OR has not made more than 50 edits during the last year. Jeepday (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though that means someone who has made one edit in the past five months and 29 days is active, whereas someone who made 49 edits 6m 1 day ago is inactive. What we seem to want to define an active administrator edited within past six months, AND has a minimum of 50 edits for the year, anything outside that is INACTIVE. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw the comment on the Summary Line regarding an "inactive administrator" and am very surprised to read material here showing an inactive administrator even exists much less being inactive or only making so few edits/month or /year! That's nuts! That is no administrator. What are they doing with an administrator position? How does this come to be?

The rest of us non-administrators just about live here on Wikisource. How could anyone become nominated, accepted, and then be inactive? They obviously were not inactive to be allowed to become an administrator so what happened to them? I would have thought a person would have to be continuously active for a year or more before being allowed to become an administrator. Those who are inactive or barely active should be removed from such an honorary position because they obviously do not take it seriously. Be-Fuddled, —Maury (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone who has been de-admined due to inactivity (and had no objection to it, then or now), I have to say, your attitude pisses me off. I took my "honorary position" here seriously, but guess what? There are more important things in life than this website. I have a day job, a fairly active social life, and (most importantly) my own theatre company. I love me some Wikisource, but at the end of the day, it simply isn't the only thing going on in my life. I'm "sorry" if it offends you that I would put my day job above Wikisource (since that's what pays for the internet connection and electricity I use to edit here), I'm "sorry" if you're offended that I put my social life above the project (if you don't have a balance of real-life friends with online work, that's your fault), and I'm "sorry" if my elected position with a non-profit corporation requires so much of my attention at times that I can't edit here.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to edit here when it's convenient for me to do so, and won't when it isn't. If you don't like it, tough shit. EVula // talk // // 18:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not offended by anything you say. Dream on... But I wonder, did you get "de-admined" due to the use of profanities and flaming at workers here? We all have a world to live in beyond en.WS and you need not ever state that you are "sorry" as some things are obvious and run in some families. Happy Holidays. —Maury (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in agreement with Jeepday in that one trigger or the other was also my perception of the qualifier for inactivity. The whole point raised by Doug alluding to a threshold for logged Admin actions was tempting to try to include at first but there just aren't enough folks with the bit who are here on a regular basis to warrant that change. I'd prefer the AND be changed to an OR myself but at this point I can live with the status quo as long as the policy is unambiguous unlike before these discussions took off. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not as new as you think. In this edit the six months AND 50 edits was added to Wikisource:Adminship. It's just unfortunate that this criterion was different from the four months that used to be stated on Wikisource:Restricted access policy. All of our recent confirmation votes have been based on six months AND 50 edits.

I recommend that we keep the status quo and monitor it over the next few months. If it means that activity/inactivity is being measured incorrectly and admins are being confirmed/removed inappropriately then we need to revisit the criteria. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure I can support a proposal that includes watching to see if volunteers are inappropriately treated before making a decision. I also have issue with counting admin activity based on usage of some tools. Using myself as an example. At Wikisource my admin activities leave huge foot prints as most have them have to do with Wikisource:Proposed deletions and Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. But at Wikipedia probably 90 or 95% of my "admin actions" are removing vandal block requests like this one. Jeepday (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Let's look back over the last few de-sysops. Xxagile, Larry Gilbert, JamAKiska & Mattwj2002 were de-sysoped in 2012. The first three have not returned and made any edits and so the decision to desysop was correct. Mattwj2002 resigned his bit and has made sporadic edits since and when his life settles down maybe he'll be able to return. This all means that we can't say that the status quo is unfairly causing desysops.

With respect to Jeepday's point about counting admin activity: most of the longish list of "rights" at Special:UserGroupRights for Admins are not logged as actions in the Admin Statistics and as we are a small community there aren't that many of the counted actions (Blocks, Protections, MediaWiki edits, Deletions, Imports & Rights changes) that need to be performed. (Interestingly, deletions is the only action that every current Admin has performed.) Also, a few of the very active users who are also admins are patrolling RC and therefore pick up most of the deletions and blocks that come from there. This means that other admins whose focus is elsewhere simply don't have the opportunity to perform these particular activities.

In essence, I'm saying that 6 months AND 50 edits seems to be working and that we don't need to change it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Failure to return to Wikisource, does not validate the decision. I looked for a tool to see if I could find if when these users made their last edit to any sister site, did not find one. So just looking at Wikipedia, because if you are around any where, you probably make a mark at Wikipedia at least in passing. Last edits:
Two of the four have edited WP since there last edit here. Are they active on a sister project now? Did they leave the wiki world and we turned off their tools, or did turning off their tools during a period Real life, drive them away from WS? Note the discussion between EVula & Maury above, everyone has different visions (neither is right or wrong) just different.
Also note that the only (to my knowledge) rule where WP is less strict then the expectations that have been discussed here is admin activity. w:Wikipedia:Administrators "are never required to use their tools". w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators "Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
To the best of my knowledge there are only two reasons to Take an admins tools away. Punitive or security concerns. If a user is active on any sister project, the security is not a real concern. So if we have users who "who are known in the community and whose edits and contributions have proven trustworthy", why do we need to take their tools away if they make less then some number of edits? The Admin is not obligated to make a specific number of edits, or to use any tool some number of times. My premise is and has been, the rules as they are, are hurtful to the volunteers and the community. The suggestion of changing AND to OR, is very minor and still leaves rules more restrictive then needed. Jeepday (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just discovered that I missed ThomasV from my list of this year's desysops. Putting Mattwj2002 aside as he resigned, in three of the four discussions editors stated that they would be happy to give the mop back as soon as they returned. Given that we have done this twice over the years (Book of Jude and EVula) and one of those this year, I doubt that desysoping for inactivity is what has kept them inactive on enWS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for including the link to CrossActivity, which dispels my concern that volunteers moved to another wiki. As the entry at Wikisource:Restricted_access_policy#Loss defines only the criteria for the auto confirm or auto remove, every member of the community still has the option to vote based on their personal choice. Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not following your logic - what does activity elsewhere have to do with the security concerns raised by any given measure of inactivity here? Sorry, unless I personally witness (or somebody in good standing here connects) activities elsewhere as being "beneficial" to Wikisource in some way, shape or form, I don't consider what takes place elsewhere even marginally relevant to any practice or policy here on en.WS. If he or she is inactive here - then (imho) that person is inactive; Period. -- George Orwell III (talk)
I agree with George that activity off-wiki isn't terribly relevant to activity on-wiki. I was marginally active on enwiki while I was inactive here; I wouldn't have thought that my adminship here would be kept just because I make a block on Wikiquote, for example.
Also, something to keep in mind is that likely all of the existing administrators (I don't particularly feel like doing the leg work necessary to figure out how many) have been given their sysop bit after the "inactive admins are removed" policy was implemented. This means that, by submitting their RfA, they implicitly agreed to the policies surrounding adminship, which includes the potential for their removal. They agreed to it, so there shouldn't be an issue with them being upset about them being removed. EVula // talk // // 10:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point I think that the community has quite a reasonable approach to managing the removal of admin rights, and that is via our annual review process. It suits us for the size of the community that we have, and as we don't utilise an intermediate rights set(s). We have criteria that make it easy to desysop users who are inactive, though we have had users who have been inactive yet retained their rights for another year. I see no impetus for a change in the practice we have used to set a criteria, though happy to resolve any lack of clarity. If the wish at time of review the criteria for active is ... <= 6m then edits >0 AND <=12mo edits >= 50; I can live with that. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdraw my suggestion for change, while I personally still support less stringent criteria. There are many valid reasons for the criteria to be as is, and the bar is not unreasonably high. If it appears later that the community is supporting through votes a different criteria, then it can be readdressed. Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


With the recent clarification of expectations; "admin-flagged bot undertakes a yearly confirmation process with its admin owner" at Wikisource:Bots#Confirmation, do we want to modify {{Admin confirmation}} and/or the table at Wikisource:Administrators#Current_administrators to include bot info? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMNSHO poke Hesperian for an opinion as he has been managing it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have any admin bots other than Talbot? I can confirm that Talbot has been through a confirmation process each year, either with GrafZahl or on its own. The table lists Talbot under GrafZahl's "other access". We seem to be getting by just fine with the current {{Admin confirmation}} template even though it doesn't provide any special handling of admins who are also bureaucrats, checkusers, stewards, developers, etc.; isn't "admin bot user" just another member of that list? Hesperian 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the question "Do we have any admin bots other than Talbot?" while provide the answer to if we need to do anything special. We have several Admins with Bots, but how do we tell if a bot has admin power? Category:Bot accounts does not offer any hints and I don’t know where else to look. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:ListAdmins confirms we just have the one admin bot. Hesperian 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appears our present method of tracking admin bots is sufficient. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikisource:Bots/List completed? I used several different tools to identify bots, no tool included all, so presumably I missed some. The wild card search which should have shown them all did not. My next task is to start updating the info on the bots in the list. Jeepday (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wikisource:Bots/List is updated. Added {{Bot}} to all the bots I could find. The present format and location of the list is/was for my benefit while researching the bots, suggestions for change encouraged. Jeepday (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Any changes or suggestions? (If none in the next week or so, move to step 2)
  2. January 2013; Confirmation for bots marked "TBD 2013" (excepting possibly User:DougBot & User:Spangineer's bot; who don’t hit the 2 year mark until February)
  3. January 2013; Messages to bots/owners marked "Pending 90 day warning per Wikisource:Bots#Confirmation"
  4. July 2013; Confirmation for any missed in steps 2 and all from step 3 above.
  5. January 2014; confirmation as indicated
  6. Cycle continues every 6 months


Has any administrator noticed the statements of User:HelicopterLlama both on his talk page and more so on the subject lines of messages about "serbs rule", "bosnia we will never forgive you", will "kill", et cetera. His messages show the red exclamation point on the watchlist. Too, look at his statements on "contributions" —Maury (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have mentioned to user that this is not the site for inflammatory commentary. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double Redir cachingEdit

I noticed that Special:DoubleRedirects "was last updated 09:01, 10 September 2013.". Is this normal? Or is there something stuck that needs to be oiled?--Mpaa (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giving up checkuserEdit

I haven't been as active on this great site as I used to, so I think it's time for me to give up the Checkuser privilege. This site should have another Checkuser who is better prepared to invest the time. I'd like to keep my administrator role as long as you'll have me, but given my focus on other things my participation will likely continue to be intermittent. Thanks! (PS: I'm not aware if any other steps are needed for me to give up this role; if so, please let me know) Spangineer (háblame) 22:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To resign list yourself at m:SRP or ask one of our crats to do that for you which we have usually done from the main namespace of this page. Noting that with the resignation we are back below two checkusers, so the community returns to zero checkusers. @Hesperian, @Mpaa, @Zhaladshar: if that happens will you please notify same page so that my local CU rights are removed while we are below threshold. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional, with my rights being removed stewards then become our checkusers, and I would usually be unable to undertake local CU as that conflict between use of tools in home environment. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested removal.[12] Thanks, Spangineer, for your service in the role.

I think we should have a conversation without delay about whether we wish to elect a new Checkuser so as to retain the ability to perform Checkusers locally, and if so, who. Is this the best forum for that conversation?

Hesperian 09:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make your choice of the appropriate forum, and it should get pointers from both WS:S and WS:AN, and from there it can progress. My current position will sit suspended until we reach the quota of 2. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To note that I too have permanently relinquished checkuser rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there anyone willing to take up the new checkuser position so that we can have our own local checkusers? It's a shame to go down to none.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really minor pointEdit

I note the page as currently phrased says "Administrators are given access for one year per the restricted access policy." Maybe it's just me, but I've rarely if ever seen such a statement without a clear statement of what it specifically is that people have access to, and I don't see any clear indication of what it is they have access to in the current phrasing. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter: Are you wishing for something like a link to Special:ListGroupRights#sysop? Or that though with a light summary list, eg. primarily tools that allow: for pages the (un)deletion, (un)protection; for users (un)blocking, and access to simple configuration files. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement and indication is on the very first line of the page: "users who are granted extra rights and responsibilities as described at Wikisource:Adminship." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair on John, that statement wasn't there until I added it yesterday in partial response to this thread. Hesperian 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug: Internal Error MWExceptionEdit

Where can I report bugs? Try to edit this page de:Index:Bodmer March-Buch Band 2 . - If you click on edit ("Bearbeiten") you get an internal error: [WrlKsApAMEkAAIosxUkAAABA] 2018-03-26 19:32:00: Fataler Ausnahmefehler des Typs „MWException“.

  1. Can you fix it? → Thanks a lot!, if not
  2. Can you report it? → Thanks a lot!, if not
  3. Can you tell me, where I need to request this to be fixed?

-- de:User:Saippuakappias, Saippuakauppias (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Saippuakauppias: The page name is "Index:Index:..." which is going to cause problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, the page to be edited is this one! And there is the problem! --Saippuakauppias (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Saippuakauppias: You will need to talk to German Wikisource, de:Wikisource:Skriptorium they will need to move the double Index: page and to their local name. Following the English language details doesn't work exactly for deWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'crat COI questionEdit

Is there a practice in place as to whether a 'crat can close a confirmation vote in which they have participated? Should 'crats refrain from participating in such discussions altogether? BD2412 T 07:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By convention, a 'crat doesn't close confirmations (or nominations) they participate in. Occasionally, Hesperian's had to close one when the other 'crats weren't available. It's the controversial confirmations that are awkward, because we will often have an opinion or have been involved at some point in the lead up. A 'crat's opinion may be seen as guidance to go one way or another. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typically, Hesperian for years has requested others to close their confirmation.

If a confirmation is all green, then I have no issue with a self-close for stating the bleeding obvious. If there was anything contentious, then I would expect that the keep their fingers off. The stewards have always had to deal with this issue, and where there is no independent point of view, then a stepwise approach has been the solution to the community's consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the "bleeding obvious" standard. I think a reasonable balance can be struck by 'crats weighing in at the end rather than the beginning, in those situations. BD2412 T 21:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I once requested a steward to close a vote that both local 'crats had voted on, and they refused because our policy ('simple majority') could be uncontroversially applied. So it came back to me to close. In such cases all you can do is be as transparent as possible. Hesperian 03:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, Any trusted user can close a discussion; it need not be a 'crat. Hesperian 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Length of voting periodEdit

Wikisource:Restricted access policy states that... The vote will be held for at least one week and the established practice is more than 2 weeks. So the current closure of the Interface administrator rights request just four days after the voting started has quite surprised me. I am not protesting against the applicant by any means, in fact I was just waiting until I have time to read the answers to the various questions and was prepared to vote for. I am just curious about the reasons of such haste. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given B's global IA history, along with the support of the other 'crat, this was going to be a SNOW and I didn't see the point in waiting. If it had been almost anyone else, I would have hung on for longer to allow for a fuller canvas. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Skipping over the formalities for the "in group" is a bit iffy. Had it been a temporary assignment for a specific task then, sure, let's make it easy, quick, and unbureaucratic. But this is a permanent (well, you know, with the usual caveats) assignment of a permission with far greater damage potential then normal admin rights (IA rights were removed from admins for a reason). In addition to actual vetting of who gets this, I think it's important that the community gets the opportunity to be heard on such requests.
I also think the support of other 'crats should be irrelevant in cases such at this. In this stage of the process the 'crats are just secretaries making sure all the formalities are followed. It's when the community is split the 'crats have to step in to assess what the community consensus is, and in that stage 'crat judgement on what arguments are strong and weak etc. affect the outcome. For example, any argument that Billinghurst is likely to abuse their access would presumably be judged extremely weak absent very specific and strong evidence to the contrary.
But even in that stage it's not the 'crat's personal opinion that counts: they're assessing community consensus, not overriding it. BD2412 !voting there was perfectly fine, but then in their capacity as community member (with no more or less weight than any other community member). Both 'crats !voting in the same discussion is also strictly speaking fine, but to avoid giving the impression of partiality it may be a good idea that if one of you !vote the other abstains in order to do the close afterwards. In either case what's important is the ability to separate the community member and 'crat roles when performing 'crat tasks (i.e. the closing and assessing consensus bits).
Oh, well. No harm no foul, and I agree the outcome was SNOW. I just think some formality (or bureaucracy if you prefer) is necessary to maintain functioning processes and the community's trust in them. Even in SNOW cases. Xover (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had frankly assumed that the process would remain open somewhat longer, and as I am traveling for a conference in the coming week I figured I wouldn't be around to close the discussion, so might as well participate in it. BD2412 T 12:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]