Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/BirgitteSB

From Wikisource

Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by BirgitteSB. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

[edit] BirgitteSB

[edit] 2005-12 admin

User:BirgitteSB has been doing sterling work and is well clued-up on the ins and outs of WS. My suggestion and her acceptance are on our respective talk pages. Apwoolrich 08:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - Glad to have you abourd! Dovi 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support AllanHainey 16:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2006-12 confirmation

status administrator since 06 December 2005 (unanimous)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions adminship (passed)
  • Support continued adminship. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued sysopship. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship. Dovi 12:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for continued adminship. - Politicaljunkie 14:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship.--Jusjih 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for continued adminship. Helpful and thoughtful. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - AllanHainey 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed, administrator access confirmed. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-01 bureaucrat

BirgitteSB (talk • contribs)

I am nominating myself for bureaucrat. I think en.WS has grown enough to need a second bureaucrat and I would like to take on the task.--BirgitteSB 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with the need and I feel that BirgitteSB will do an excellent job. She is active and has a good understand of policy as well as Wikisource's customs and practices. FloNight 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Also agree with that it is a good idea for a number of reasons (even at he.wikisource we have two). Couldn't think of a better candidate: A hard worker and tireless contributor who is always willing to kindly lend a helping hand. A polite diplomat with a wise sense of judgement. Keep up the fantastic work, Dovi 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, although I wish you were more often on irc ThomasV 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no problems here. Cowardly Lion 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I do not believe a 'crat can understand, represent and develop the community without regular participation on IRC, as it is a venue where most of our "infrastructure" community members congregate to discuss issues, and to make themselves available to other project members and Wikimedians. OTOH, BirgitteSB is a highly regarded member of the project and I trust will do a good job of the tasks mentioned on m:crat. John Vandenberg 12:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, Birgitte seems a good choice. (I think of a 'crat as a Wikimedia role, and the IRC channel isn't a part of Wikimedia, so I don't see a need for IRC participation. It's nice, but not necessary, in my opinion.) Quadell 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very involved and seems to genuinely care about this project. - Epousesquecido 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree that having multiple bureaucrats is good even just from a "Neutrality" viewpoint - and Birgitte is a fine choice to fill that role. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • IRC is not mandatory in my view, and her using it less than she used to is not a deal breaker, in view of her knowledge of how things work here. Likely to carefully evaluate consensus, which is what is most needed in a 'crat. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I note John V's concerns but don't find them decisive.--Poetlister 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Of course, it would be nice to talk to you on IRC but I think that's not mandatory for the post. Yann 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Needed now that the one bureaucrat is occupied with other things. Eclecticology 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Another bureaucrat is very much needed, as much to the chagrin to many people here I have been very delayed in any sort of bureaucratic responsibility.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There has been no further opinion offered for close to a week, and the nom has been running for almost 10 days. Things stand at 12 supports and one neutral... I'd say that looks like consensus to me and I have mailed Zhaladshar suggesting he take a look and see what he thinks. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • She seems to have already been promoted. —Quadell (talk/swapmeet) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna go with... "because I nudged Z"... thank you very much! I think I can even doctor the timestamps to prove it. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-01 confirmation

status administrator since 06 December 2005 (unanimous)
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions
  • Support continued adminship. Actively using the buttons, patrolling, and 1500 contribs this year, with a high percentage being maintenance and administrative edits. John Vandenberg 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support continued adminship. Active editor and admin. Helpful and knowledgeable. FloNight 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Cowardly Lion 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Quadell 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly no problems!--Poetlister 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since she was recently given the bureaucratic bit by near-unanimous consent, it would be hilarious (though manifestly inappropriate, and probably technically impossible) for her to not get consensus to retain admin rights. I think it's safe to close this as "reconfirmation passed". Can any admin close this, or does a bureaucrat have to? And can Birgitte safely do this herself? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, it's not technically impossible to have 'crat without having admin. I've seen stranger things happen. As for closing, I think anyone (even a non admin) can close successful reconfirmations (by marking closed and then archiving) but it tends to be at the end of the month. I think. The Forms Must Be Obeyed :) ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It seems simplest to archive the reconirmations at the end of the month in order to put the people for the next month at the same time. It doesn't much matter who does this as long as they follow the list correctly.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 10:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (obviously :-) ).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support ThomasV 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Hesperian 01:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed: Reconfirmed. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-02 confirmation

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Confirmed
status administrator since December 2005 — bureaucrat since January 2008
activity active (contributions, logs)
discussions
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/BirgitteSB"