Wikibooks talk:Administrators/Unstable

My purpose with this unstable branch is not to differ significantly from the current text of this policy, but instead to help clarify some points that have been put into question recently. I am hoping that making a number of small changes to the existing text will be accepted more quickly and readily then a complete rewrite of this policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold & unblocking
I'll read more as soon as I have time BUT as it stands I would have an issue with that bit. A couple of times I have unblocked an ip or vandal account blocked by another admin in order to block for longer (possibly after having looked at the equivalent WP page). It is not something I would do lightly but I would certainly do it. I stress I am referring to vandalism (by IP or registered user) blocks. I have also seen other admins do the same and have merely considered it interesting & instructive -- Herby talk thyme 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We can put in an exception for blocked accounts which are later discovered to to be repeat vandals or something simialar. What we don't want is for the kind of nonsense that we've seen recently, where admins are all "being bold" and changing blocks around without any discussion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I put in an exception here for what you are talking about. It makes good sense that blocks can be made indefinite for the people who qualify for such blocks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me thanks -- Herby talk thyme 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

De-admin thing
Should the fact that they will be de-admin after a year of no edits be there? -- Herby talk thyme 18:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe so, I believe 100% that it's not a lifetime membership and that you shouldnt have it if you don't need it. So long as we are proposing changes, you could certainly suggest otherwise, but i think it's a necessity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This was a huge argument a year or so ago and had quite a bit of community approval and discussion. I'm hoping this is a solid issue and doesn't need to be constantly debated. -within focus 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not trying to raise it (I'd be far harsher!) - just the fact that it should be in there -- Herby talk thyme 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one year of inactivity is too long to wait before removing the tools. A lot can and does happen around here in shorter periods of time. Having the tools should be about having a current need for the tools to the benefit of the community and a current understanding of the community, rather than for ones own benefit. I'm thinking rules should be more tight, while at the same time being a little bit more forgiving.

Perhaps 3 months of complete inactivity, no contributions or involvement in any discussions on talk pages, IRC, the mailing list, Wikimania, local chapters, etc. and no use of the administrative tools, in other words, a complete halt of any dealings with Wikibooks, should be enough to have the tools removed. Since there not around to use them, its not benefiting the community for them to continue to have them, so they should be removed. I also think an upper limit would also be useful, such as 6 months or more of not having used the administration tools at least a few times, even if there active in other ways, should be enough to have the tools removed. Again because its not benefiting the community for them to continue to have them, when there not being used.

However I think the bureaucrats, in there best judgment, should be able to give the tools again to anyone whose had the tools removed this way without much hassle and without the person having to repeat the entire RFA process over again, provided they demonstrate a need for the tools again to the benefit of the community and nobody objects. This principal of having a need to the benefit of the community should be emphasized more in the policy. On a somewhat related side note, I don't like how "trusted members of the community" was removed and think it should be reintroduced. --dark lama  14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Put the "trusted" bit back DL - it is an important aspect of admin for me (can't see where it came out). My views are pretty much the same as yours I think.  On "getting it back" I'm fine with those who give up voluntarily (just worked ok on Commons with a request and a quick 24 straw poll) not sure about those who have been de-admin'd though.  It's not top of my list but I'll look at the page some more though I'm sure the protesters will arrive.  They've just sent out the news to the inactive ones on Commons - some are coming back and saying "when did that happen, where etc etc" - I've resisted the temptation to point out had they been active they would have seen it so far! -- Herby  talk thyme 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like what you've said but would like the limits to go to 6m/1y instead of 3m/6m since we're not overburdened with admin tasks here and some people really do disappear for more than three months at a time. Having the "easy in" for a later RFA could solve almost all these activity issues should a user return but I still like the buffer being bigger so it's not a common occurrence. Disagreements? I also agree that trust should have some stance here. An admin doesn't always have to be very well-rounded either, at least if they're experienced. The situation I want to avoid is having people become admins that are brand new and have only worked on their book. If they can spread out just a little bit over a longer period of time I'm more comfortable. Many of us tend to have personal projects and live in our own worlds, something that shouldn't be discouraged but admins should know to take a few walks around the block from time to time. -within focus 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern with new users becoming administrators. The reason for suggesting 3m/6m is for a similar reason. After being gone for that long they can be much like new users, disconnected with the community and what the community will accept or disapprove of. That could possibly puts them in a position of not knowing any more what benefits the community. I think anyone who is infrequently involved with Wikibooks is better off finding other ways to help Wikibooks rather than having administration tools. I don't think infrequent Wikibookians with the tools benefits the community. I think its a good thing that many of the administrators have personal projects that they work on. I think someone who just pops in every once in awhile just to use the administrator tools, is not a good thing, since there not around to answer questions, which can discourage users. Administrators should be reliable, which is a part of trust. --dark lama  18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I kinda agree -I kinda don't! (not about new users, about those with projects).  Take Az & I, no projects but we have some of the highest admin action counts.  Not saying anyone is better than anyone else just that we all need to be part of a team (almost exactly the same lines as I  used on Commons earlier today).  Wiki experience is important, cross wiki experience may be good.  The problem is that you don't actually find out until they have the tools.... -- Herby  talk thyme 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But both you and Az are around to answer questions and participate in discussions. So neither of you just pop in to use the administration tools. To clarify, I think some involvement in the community other then using the tools is important, and having projects to work on is good too. I'm not suggesting that having projects should be a requirement to be given the tools, just agreeing with withinfocus that having a project is a good thing and explaining my reasoning for suggesting 3m/6m. --dark  lama  18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Give the edit I've just seen you can count on my to avoid all policy here for sometime - just isn't worth the effort on this Wiki - sorry -- Herby talk thyme 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * reset


 * Yeah, what's going on at RFA is pretty silly. I'm still not wild about 3 months though just because we're slow turtles around here. I don't think policy will change that rapidly. Six months of complete inactivity just seems more acceptable to me. -within focus 12:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about 3 months of complete inactivity unless the person mentions on there user page that there going on a hiatus from Wikibooks for more then 3 months with intentions to come back? I notice a few of the admins already do mention when there going to be away for awhile, and perhaps this practice should be encouraged? So perhaps then 3 months from that time if they have not returned remove the tools? Something like when-will-return + 3 months with some upper limit on how long someone can be on hiatus without removing the tools? Maybe also encourage people to give up the tools if they know there going to be gone awhile but unsure for how long. --dark lama  11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Withinfocus, 3 months is just far too short a time for this. Nothing is going to change, policy-wise, in 3 months. We dont need to worry that after a 3 month vacation that somebody is going to be completely out of the loop. When the de-adminship policy had first been introduced, Wikibooks policy had gone through some very substantial chagnes. However, nothing has really changed here on the policy front in a long while (at least no substantial changes that would disorient an admin).
 * 6 months is better but still not enough. Wikibooks policy does not change substantially in a 6 month period. I think that instead of making the timelimit 6 months, we keep it at a year and we require all admins to register a valid email address. If there is an emergency where an extra admin is needed, they should be contactable via email. If an admin is completely inactive and cannot be contacted via email or any other method, then we can talk about desysopping them when we are inable to get in contact with them. A sysop who is generally inactive but available "on call" is far better then an admin who is absent and unreachable. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not about policy changes, or changes in the community which can happen more frequently, but about alertness and a continued need for the tools. Sure we're all volunteers and need a break from time to time, but I think it should be kept in mind that everyone whose got the tools accepted the extra volunteer work. If someone doesn't have enough time to do the extra work, its better to find someone who does, then having to wait for someone to try to track down someone by email to take care of vandalism or some other issue, because there inactive on the project. 3 months is a long time to me to be completely inactive without any indication that they intent to be part of the project still and 6 months an even longer time to be unresponsive to users. While in some ways I believe inactive should only include activity on the wiki, I did include in my earlier suggestion that email, IRC, the mailing list, etc. be included in determining inactivity. So if someone is contacted by email and responds they would not be considered inactive. So in that way I'm also broadening what it takes to be considered inactive, even if I don't completely like it, because I figured it would be a good compromise that people could live with. People would have to basically drop off the face of the planet with no means of communication for 3 months and having not indicated any intent to continue being part of the project, before being considered inactive. --dark lama  12:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 months is a short summer, and it's not inconceivable that an admin could take a 3 month tour of europe, or do volunteer work in an area with no internet connectivity for a year. It's also not inconceivable that a school student could not find a time to stop in and say "hello" for the last 3 months of a busy semester. There's a difference between having to be active and having to "check in". A person can be absent for 3 months, not missed a thing, and have every intention to return at the earliest possible convenience. A year is different, things can change in a year and what is important to you one day (ie Wikibooks) might not be important to you on that same day next year. A person who has been absent for a year has had plenty of opportunity, and has demonstrated no intention to return. A person who is inactive for 3 months is just busy and can still be back.
 * Hecktic reorganziation at work, a tough semester, a long vacation, moving cross-country (or even internationally), having children, etc. These are all things that could easily cause a person to miss 3 months of work. If you get temporarily swept up in your life, that doesnt mean that you are neglecting your duties here. People should be allowed to take some time off without having to inconvenience them when they return. 3 months is too short for this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

A year is to long and 3 moths is also to small, some people may have problems in their personal life or unable to get any activity on the project (we also shouldn't force symbolic activity just to be kept alive). I have added a new expectation the be available this will solve most cases were we need to verify that the Wikibookian still wishes and intends in using the toolset.

I think 4 moths would be acceptable and 6 moths to a year if a good reason is given/stated on the user/talk page. By being available we can get in touch with the Wikibookians if a priority event needs participation (like voting on policies and guidelines (probably any high impact decisions in general would warrant an effort to contact them).

As for, and  don't have an active email I was going to contact them since they have been absent of the project for to a long time. Only User:Kernigh seems to indicate a new location on the user page. I haven't attempted to fallow it trough... --Panic 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Bit light on real info? -- Herby talk thyme 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The details are fleshed out at Protected page. I will post a link. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That page needs some decent work on updating its links, especially the list of pages currently protected. I suggest we don't maintain such a list since it will become quite unmanageable. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One battle at a time! Considering how long it takes to update a policy page around here, it's probably a better idea to focus our attentions on this page first, and that page second. I'll set up an unstable branch on that page, and try to prune out some of the garbage. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't want to start an unnecessary discussion but could/should they be cat'ed? -- Herby talk thyme 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. If there was some way to sweep the site and mark them, it could be helpful. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A small "This page has been protected" template (especially one that is very non-invasive) would certainly be helpful. We can work on that later too. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Split
I'd like to suggest that we split some of this out to other pages. I like what's been changed, but I think we need a separate page on blocking policy and the deletion business can be moved to the deletion policy. This page should be about what administrators do and who they are, not how they'll do it. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that 100%. We can move out issues about the blocking and deletion, and simply post links to those files from here. Keeping pages shorter and more readable is always better, I think. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an old proposal at Blocking Policy. I am going to delete the content of that page, and replace it with the relevant content from this page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Page importing
I know it's kind of obscure, but admins are also able to import pages from other wikis. I think some mention of this activity should be made here, including a mention of the transwiki policy at meta. Gentgeen 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was something I didn't know was possible when I used copy&paste to get content from Wikipedia. So we need to find some way of letting non-admins know that they can post a request for an admin to import pages and where/how to do that.  – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  | <font color="Indigo">talk 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I should note here that page imports are still fairly "experimental", meaning that the MediaWiki developers are still trying to look over what is going on with this "feature". Sometimes a page import "fails" to come across, which means you have to "delete" the page and try it all over again.  It is also something relatively new in terms of Wikimedia projects, so it isn't surprising that more people aren't aware of it.  I got my first taste of using this tool when Wikiversity was created, and I helped move some of the content from here on Wikibooks over to the new website.  --Rob Horning 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I've made a few! Having been working on Commons admin policy I thought I would review ours again. Others may disagree (of course) but these are "rights" not "privileges" for example and, in my view, admins must follow policy and set an example for instance. On Commons you will not get to be an admin without email being enabled and this seems sensible to allow folk to make contact that way and wish to say something "off wiki".

The "Activity" expectations confuse me. If they refer to activity after becoming an admin then we have policy for de-admin that specifies activity there. If it is a requirement prior to being considered for admin then the minimum is frankly laughable and should either be removed made more realistic. I'm out of time now but will return to this again I think - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I threw in a change or two myself, mostly just copyediting. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying about activity, but I don't see the activity requirement as being applicable to the pre-sysop period since that gets evaluated when the user is up for voting on RFA. After RFA we need to set an activity standard since there's no periodic evaluation period and so this provides that evaluation ability. Yes, it is a very long time for inactivity but that was the best the community could agree to at the time. I might not mind a shorter period myself, but would still like six months or so as a window of return. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Work in progress but for info. They now have an agreed policy with 5 admin actions min in 6 months as the level for de-adminship for what it's worth (as I proposed it there I would obviously support something similar here) -- Herby  talk thyme 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me but I believe others here will disagree unfortunately. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well .... there is you me & (I think) Darklama so may be worth trying something? My view is that admins should be assessed for their admin actions not their edits which I believe is a valid viewpoint.  Frankly on Commons if you can't find five things to delete you are not looking in the right place but here 2 or 3 (over six months)?  I'll be happy to work on it if you feel it worth a go? -- Herby  talk thyme 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see this whole policy get moved to the stable branch. However, when a policy is officially proposed a whole bunch of people usually come out of nowhere and hate something and progress will stop. After my last couple attempts at getting simple policies going basically failed, I became apathetic towards policy work. If you can spruce up this page (if it's even needed) and announce its vote I'd give it a support but personally I am busy enough with Muggles' Guide work lately to do a lot of policy work. There's a lot of proposals that could see work. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Review
I did some changes, but I personally think that this should be a guideline rather then a policy. Couldn't it go into the admin policy entirely anyway? Thanks, Laleena (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood the intent of this page. This is a proposal to update the current admin policy, rather then complement it. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admistrators not recently working
the list Wikibookians with extra tools need to be reviewed.Ricardoramalho (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an unstable branch and as such people tend to overlook it. You should be looking at Administrators or Special:ListAdmins instead. However I went ahead and updated the list for the unstable branch, since its been awhile since that list was last updated. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of concurrent positions...
I have talked at least two times about the benefits and help to determine the commitment one can give to the project as he is ushered into a new function, there are several aspects of the issue that have come into the talks: A. Should there be a limit to functions a person may accumulate on at least Wikimedia projects? How far is too far?
 * Logic dictates that if a scarce resource (time) is to be split across several interests as the number of interest increase the time alloted will also decrease (even if we wish to be as participative as possible), there is no way one may create more time unless reducing the level of commitments. In fact this may be a important aspect on determining if a person will have the time to commit to the project or how efficient one can be on some functions (since projects aren't just different but the rules that guide some of the functions are very distinct across projects).

B. Should we benefit from an obligation to disclose/state this information?
 * It seems that the information is already public but not easily centralized or standardized, making it a requirement to state the occupied positions in some standard way would not only help consider A) but permit to establish a better collaboration to other projects, for a little more work as a downside some real benefits can be extracted.

I put this forward so we bring this point to the table on this proposal, it is uncontested that experience in a position across projects can be beneficial but having people going after functions as a sort of title and in position just to do the bare minimum shouldn't be what we aim for but this considerations should be studied or have an impact given the status of minimum requirements. This isn't a pressing issue, not considering the numbers of admins we have on the project (the other positions are somewhat dependent and mostly in scale), but is a pertinent topic to bring to this discussion. --Panic (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see neither the necessity nor usefulness of such a limit. --Swift (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And... (In this process I'm not after your commitment to the concept, but just your input or valid objections on such requirements/considerations, the above line doesn't provide any insight or advances the issue)
 * The points used above were taken from previous discussions on the issue. But I can provide you further examples. Like the use of checkusers across Wikimedia projects, this can be seen as colliding with the presumable privacy of users, we all have right to some level of privacy, if we so desire it. Since the projects don't force a common login, users do presume to have some independence across projects, having checkuser on more than on project does pose some issues in that regard, without disregarding all parties well intentions (I confess I don't know all the checks and balances that are available to that toolset, but from previous discussions assume that not much exists or is logged except in cases of blatant abuse of power, there isn't any requirement that prevents a checkuser to share that user x on project y is the same as z on project w).
 * Another consideration that has an impact on the availability of this information is that if a user loses some flags in other projects (due to abuse, wrong doing) shouldn't we consider removing the flags here also ? I'm against blocking users across projects (we do it for open proxys) but rogue admins+ flags is a different thing the use of the toolsets are extremely similar across all projects, and in this case all seem to fall down to very simple common moral grounds. --Panic (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My previous comment was not intended to show the level of my commitment to any concept. It is a valid input as it states my view that you've failed to argue for the necessity or usefulness of limiting the number of tools that users may have across projects, and requiring users to disclose their other obligations.
 * Users are free to ask questions to users nominated for Checkuser tools, and nominees are free to answer or not. Community members then decided whether they feel happy about granting the nominee the tools. As far as I know, this natural process has served us well enough so far and I haven't heard of a single case of abuse. We don't need a policy for this. --Swift (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that having multiple commitments to several somewhat similar projects should have no barring on the level of commitment one can expect to bring as he/she steps into functions ?
 * I don't agree with that nor that it shouldn't be important on the attribution of the tools. The tools are given to be used not as a matter of title or achievement, this would be a simple way of elevating the level participation on those performing the functions, as long as the user is willing to perform them, not reduce the positions the something like a statute badge that requires a minimum of work to be maintained (this community expectation is already stated in several texts) and I have seen several times (not on Wikibook) users criticize other users that seem to aspire to accumulate such functions.
 * What I'm asking is if should there be a limit on the level of commitments for people that are put forward to perform such functions (not as a block to a need to use basis, but as a protection to keep people centered on this project and on the job).
 * A clear information on the functions of key personal on other projects IS useful and for the normal Wikibookians can be hard to establish, unless they are involved in the other projects too. Having the information that is somewhat public (most users on those functions share the login across project) centralized and structured would be important to coordination of work across projects, so things can be done more efficiently. Having people with tools across projects is often of great benefit.
 * Should the number of positions one has be somehow limited in number ?
 * I see some benefits on keeping people committed and interested to this project and to the functions they are expected to perform here. I'm not arguing for a ban (except in the checkuser case), but for the benefits to this project of reducing admin+ commitments elsewhere.
 * Some of the questions I'm putting on the table are similar to proposal to increase the minimum requirements of participation to keep the tools. In any case this issues aren't very pertinent to our present situation (mostly due to number of people in function) but are issues that should be considered before this draft is put for adoption. --Panic (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Only the opinions of logged in autoconfirmed editors will be considered"
This is not required since the process is not a vote. Any unlogged participant will have the same burden of providing a good reason for the objection to the removal, I do not particularly see how the identification is important (of course the CU can still be used in cases of grave allegations or clear misbehavior but asside from that since numbers are inrelevant what is the point of excluding anyone. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put it in purely as a proposal following a talk page discussion with Pi zero. Broadly it comes down to whether we want to make this a "community" decision, which essentially means those with some edits here who are logged in, or an "anyone" decision which would include IPs. For Checkuser elections the Stewards were questioning whether editors with a small number of edits were "valid" votes (and for CUs it is a vote) so somewhere we should have something (even if it is just for CUs) that defines what valid means. On the removal part I do feel that proposals for removal of rights for "misconduct" should be restricted to logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts to avoid abuse by vandals. The alternative is a situation where all five active admins all get a "de-admin" proposal put up by a vandal operating multiple IPs or accounts which all have to be left to run their course... <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it suffice to only validate processes that have at least one registered user support (autoconfirmed will not make any difference, and there may be valid reasons for a unregistered user to initiate the process) But why protect only admins to this risk?
 * CU voting participation is a bit distinct since the process is not defined here but at meta (any requirements should point to the relevant meta rules of vote), since we can't change the process here...
 * I note that for instance Darklama is not autoconfirmed (nor do I see it as a needed requirement for admin). This is interesting because reviewers today need to be autoconfirmed and we may have several that are not. Beyond the ease of contact I do not see a special interest in requiring autoconfirmation (it is hardly a security feature). There are advantages but should it be an obligation ? CU and Burucrasts are distinct in this because of outside requirements and they are few in numbers. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename to “librarians”
Hello there.

I am a computer science author educator on Wikiversity, and I just came here to add my two cents here:

I have observed that on Wikiversity, administrators are referred to as “custodians”, which is a suitable metaphor.

Out of curiosity, I headed over here to see whether they have a non-default name here too, which is not the case.

Has anyone here ever thought about naming administrators “librarians”, as a matching metaphor?

I am not proposing this, but I just wanted to share this thought. Marcus Alanius (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | last edited: 20:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is very descriptive of the role actually. A librarian helps readers find materials, and advises on their use. Administrators here are more involved with the technical management of the library (ensuring books aren't defaced, fixing the shelves) and helping book writers, not readers. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the role of Librarian could be compared to the role of Docent on Wikivoyage? --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)