Wikisource:Administrators

Languages listed are those in which they can carry out correspondence.

Please edit the list at the Meta-Wiki when adding or removing names from this list.

Administrators are given access for one year per the Administrator policy. Regular votes are held to confirm each user's status.

"Administrator access depends on the continued support of the community. This may be tested by a vote of confidence, in which a simple majority (50%+1) must support the user's continued adminship for it to be retained. Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called. Such a proposal is made automatically one year after the last scheduled or called proposal. The full schedule of proposal votes is available on the administrators page.

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

—Administrator policy (as of 01 October 2007)

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.

• Support continued access. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:08:05, 01 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support continued access--BirgitteSB 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. —Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. FloNight 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. - Politicaljunkie 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. John Vandenberg 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though it's not needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, keep up the good work. Dovi 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. ThomasV 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support continued access. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:08:05, 01 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support continued access--BirgitteSB 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. —Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral pending email activation.--Jusjih 01:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. There was a similar problem on Commons recently where most admins had not validated their email as it was desactivated by default. Yann 12:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support continued access.--Jusjih 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support continued access. FloNight 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. - Politicaljunkie 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. John Vandenberg 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though it's not needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course. Dovi 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. ThomasV 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support continued access. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:08:05, 01 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support no question in my mind. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe} 06:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access--BirgitteSB 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose stopping access. —Benn Newman ^(AMDG) 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access.--Jusjih 01:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. FloNight 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. - Politicaljunkie 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. John Vandenberg 23:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though it's not needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support your wonderful work. Dovi 20:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support continued access. ThomasV 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations are archived.

Jayvdb (talk • contribs)

I joined Wikisource in March 2007 to work on Author:W. H. R. Rivers and Author:Siegfried Sassoon, and have been contributing almost daily with only a few gaps when other activities have prevented me. In addition to adding books, journal articles, court opinions, obituaries and assisting with discussions on the Scriptorium and the two deletion boards, I have been working my way through the images on Wikisource, moving them to commons where possible, or proposing deletions. To this end, I have started operating JVbot (talk • contribs) and dragged BetacommandBot (talk • contribs) over to help speed things up. While I have only 4000 contribs between me and my bot, I expect that they are sufficiently broad to establish that I will not use the sysops capabilities rashly or obstinately. I will use the capabilities to protect the Wiki (being in the GMT+10 timezone will decrease chances of unchecked vandalism sprees) and assisting in the backlogs. John Vandenberg 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, even just on watchlisted pages I've seen - John has checked/corrected licenses, created disambiguation pages and fixed incorrect headers. In addition, he's performed "above and beyond" the necessary amount of "raw work adding new texts", and seems to value debate and compromise over rash autonomous decisions. All told, he would be an excellent choice for administrator. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables} 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, his contributions are well-balanced and my experience of him in discussion have been nothing but glowingly positive. He all but embodies my ideal administrator. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• support ThomasV 07:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely helpful fellow who "gets it" and is "not likely to delete the front page". Support ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Finally!! Always the guy I look to as the voice of reason. - Epousesquecido 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Knowledgeable, trustworthy, and extremely helpful. Giving this user admin tools will be a great benefit to the project, indeed. FloNight 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--BirgitteSB 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Politicaljunkie 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]