Wikisource talk:Adminship

This looks realy great!

This looks realy great! One small nitpick is that we might say privileges or abilities in place of rights thoughtout the document.--BirgitteSB 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. But in this sense, rights does mean privileges and abilities. It's a common word used in documentation on other Wikimedia projects. But, again, I don't care either way.

Self-nomination

There is a lengthy discussion about this now on Wikien-l, with horror stories of people becoming an admins pretty well on the back of mass-edits on talk pages, membership of special interest groups, etc, but little real work on actually writing articles! I would like to see the Admins list expanded to spread the load on housekeeping work, but with people who have a wide spread of activity not just bulk edits in non-essential areas.

I see we are now getting people join WS whose names appear on the serious end of WP. I hope they will contribute meaningfully here as well. Apwoolrich 08:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I browsed some of the discussion there. I really don't think the problem WP is facing will affect us here (at least for a very long while). WS is just too small to let users be given admin rights by slipping through the cracks. Since WS is such a small project, we are all aware of who the heavy and medium contributors are. We also know who the new contributors, or those with little experience here are. So when they self-nominate themselves for adminship, we'll know almost right off the bat whether the person is established here or not, and what kind of edit history they have. I don't think we'll have to worry about that for quite some time (hopefully never, though).

It's good to see that some serious WP contributors are appearing here. I'm not plugged in much with WP, but the serious contributors are the ones that we need the most and will really be the most helpful to this project (ideally).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Obligations

I don't know there are any tasks that could be considered obligations, although a good faith effort to check the Copyright violations, Proposed deletions, Protection policy, and Requests for assistance since only admins can perform some of those tasks. Perhaps admins are obligated to adhere to the official policies of WS goes without saying--BirgitteSB 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the latter: uphold official WS policies (which we need to now formulate…). That's really the only obligation, along with enforcing community-decided issues. I can only think of those two, but I think the should be added. I'll write that section up some time today.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried righting up the obligations section, but I haven't been happy with anything I've come up with. Birgitte's right, the things expected of admins go without saying. There really seems no point to even say those. I say we just remove the section entirely.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A policy we don't seem to have is ensuring that editors post new documents with the accompanying navigation, author, title, text quality, etc templates. Too many texts appear to be dumped 'as-is' simply properly edited but lacking any information about the origins and the like. This is something the admins should be noting on the texts to ensure it is done. Maybe yet another template:-)Apwoolrich 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

'Rights'

Isn't privileges the proper expression here? A right is something you have a justified claim for, but administrator permissions are granted by the community solely on voluntary basis, and may be revoked by the community for any reason. Paradoctor (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is more the reference to geek speak. The community indeed does grant the permission, and when it is applied the software application considers the user has been granted rights to be able to undertake the action. billinghurst (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that the policy is read by the software, too. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

More than that, it is the basis of the appointment, every account can have a level of assigned rights to do things, some are automatic, some are assigned by the community. More info at Special:ListGroupRights and you, cf. me. You are right though that it is jargon not proper language. billinghurst (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be glad Henry Higgins hasn't seen this. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'xplain of the inane falls mainly to the insane?  :-pbillinghurst (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tech Support: "I need you to boot the computer."

Customer: (THUMP! Pause.) "No, that didn't help." The Bleeding Obvious

:P Paradoctor (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct wording for INACTIVE administrator?

The wording for the test for an INACTIVE administrator seems awry, or am I not reading it properly.

“	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.	”
—Wikisource:Adminship#Inactive admins

To be classed as inactive it poses an AND test. To be declared INACTIVE, you must not have edited in 6 months AND not had 50 edits in the past year. I was looking to apply the test for this months confirmations and found that under my reading to remain active an administrator just needs to make one post within the six months prior to their confirmation. That seems a very light test.

I would have thought that the test should be what is required to be an active administrator, and if they fail that test then it would be active. The test for activity being the number of edits in twelve months (currently 50), and to have edited in previous six months. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we apply the standard used on Wikimedia Commons, outlined at commons:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship? -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest we need a reasonable number of edits in the last six months plus the exercise of admin powers at least once. If a user is still contributing but not using the powers, does he/she need them?--Longfellow (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a "rule"? I was under the assumption that people could "vote" any way they liked, regardless of whether these criteria are met. The only purpose of the criteria is to determine whether or not an administrator gets an automatic confirmation vote (requiring 50% approval) or whether three people have to vote against him first. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to note that we have at least three conflicting standards. as I noted at Wikisource:Administrators#Dmitrismirnov, the standard above is not what the standard on this page says, or not all of it, it says:

“	Wikisource adopts Meta's policy for inactive administrators, whereby an inactive sysop will have his or her rights removed. 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.	”
—Wikisource:Adminship#Inactive_admins (emphasis added)

• But Meta's policy says:

“	Any sysop inactive on Meta will be desysopped. "Inactivity" is normally defined as fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months.	”
—[[m:Meta:Administrators#Inactivity|]]

• However, I've realized that's not the half of it. Wikisource:Adminship is not policy, but we do have one and it says:

“	An inactive user is one who has not edited during the past four months. Inactive users automatically lose their restricted access in their next scheduled confirmation vote unless at least half of the voting community supports continued access. Any user who has lost access due to inactivity may reapply through the regular processes.	”
—Wikisource:Restricted_access_policy#Inactivity]]

• And that's an exception to our normal rule of confirmations, that three users must oppose thus triggering a vote of confidence. So, I have removed the material here that is conflict with our policy and referenced the policy.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

2019 discussion about #obligations

Changes were made to the section about obligations, and after a discussion the text was returned to the status quo. That conversation can be read in the archives (Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2019, once archiving occurs). The conversation in its original for can be seen at special:permalink/9623713#Obligations / expectations of administrators — billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Obligations

I don't see why a smaller project like Wikisource shouldn't be able to implement a policy that any nomination for adminship must be accompanied by twenty maintenance tasks like Category:Works with no header template (fourteen years without a header being added? seriously?) and adding one of the Wikisource:Requested texts (some have been there for at least nine years). Confirmation hearings can require a token obligation as well. At least start cleaning up the terrible backlog.

Lemuritus (purr or yap) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Because they are community obligations, nothing to do with the tools to which you are granted rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? There are 17 years of backlogged problems on the wiki, I don't mean "We don't have this work by Noel Coward!", I mean "This is a copyvio", "This has no header" and "90% of texts are uncategorized" - and the best you can offer is that admins shouldn't have any responsibility or obligation to clear a 17-year backlog? That seems ludicrous. Lemuritus (Moving this convo over to Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Why_not_introduce_some_maintenance_obligations_for_admins? since I assume most people do not watch this talkpage) (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)