Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Kathleen.wright5

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 Kathleen.wright5. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kathleen.wright5[edit]

2008-08 admin[edit]

Kathleen.wright5 (talkcontribs) - edit count

I know how use the Admin. tools because I'm an Admin at WikiChristian

  • Support Kathleen has been very active doing administrative-type work, with 2500 edits to date, and has learnt a lot about our wiki (sometimes the hard way). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayvdb. RlevseTalk 11:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit premature to me; she is still at the stage of asking a lot of questions that you would expect administrators to have the answers to. Hesperian 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

* Neutral per Hesperian. Being an admin isn't just using the tools (and anyway the technicalities vary slightly depending on the version of the software); you need to know the site.--Poetlister 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • On second thoughts, Support but I urge the candidate to remember that different wikis require different techniques and procedures.--Poetlister 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Great breadth of helpful edits, including proofreading, categorization, and creating and organizing templates. Tarmstro99 13:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Although some of her edits have been unconventional, I believe she is committed to the project, especially in maintenance tasks which could be facilitated by giving her the tools. Only reminder to her is to consult the community before doing possibly controversial admin tasks, something all admins commonly do. - Mtmelendez 13:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- user seems suitable. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportZhaladshar (Talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Appointed per consensus--BirgitteSB 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

2009-09 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since August 2008 by unanimous election (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Kathleen.wright5 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Support without hesitation -- billinghurst (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support after consideration of contributions; looks good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Uses powers wisely. --Eliyak T·C 04:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. --John Vandenberg (chat) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose—I've didn't think she was ready when she nominated last time, and I still don't think she has gotten the feel for the place. For example, why edit-protect Onward, Christian Soldiers?[1] As far as I know, it is neither featured nor a target of vandalism. Why delete this? And this? And what is the rationale for this move?; it seems wrong to me. My concerns go back to her very first administrative action, which was to preemptively semi-protect her user page,[2] an action which I thought contrary to our culture. All year I've been noticing this kind of thing on the periphery of my watchlist, things that make me doubt her judgement. I'd prefer to withdraw these rights for a while. Hesperian 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the protection of Onward, Christian Soldiers, it is pretty clearly stated in the protection policy that texts proofed to 100% should be protected, and that even 75% texts can be protected as a matter of course (no vandalism history required). That policy doesn't seem to have been updated to account for the existence of semi-protection, but it's still "in force", technically. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have also noticed many of these issues (and fixed a few), and understand the concerns. My only concern is that Kathleen doesnt interact often, however she is a high volume editor, and doesn't do many odd admin actions (due to low volume of admin actions). Most of her use of the tools are either pretty good, or understandable. Spangineer has pointed out one case where a reasonable explanation can be given, and wrt Statute of Anne, it still needs to be merged; I can understand that she decided action was needed! Canadian Militia General Orders could be organised as subpages; we haven't made firm decisions on how to structure items of this kind.
    My periphery vision doesn't stretch very far this way at the moment, however her actions are low volume and as a result they can be reviewed occasionally. There has never been any very bad decisions, or any inter-admin strife, so I think we'll be fine here. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. —Pathoschild 14:44:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

2010-10 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Confirmed
administrator since 2008-08 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Kathleen.wright5 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2011-11 confirmation[edit]

admin since Aug 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Kathleen.wright5 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.

2012-12 confirmation[edit]

admin since August 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Kathleen.wright5 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.
  • Kathleen uses the tools from time-to-time and moreover is so active as an editor that she obviously needs to have them handy. No question she should be confirmed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • supportbillinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support— Kathleen is a good worker! —Maury (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: While I do not know much about why anyone wants to be an administrator other than perhaps they are truly dedicated to being an administrator, like the feeling of authority, and the use of some "tools", whatever tools may be, it seems to me that en.Wikisource should retain all administrators possible who actually do administrate here on en.Wikisource e.g. Whatever happened to Chris55 that we (I) supported? He has not been supportive to en.Wikisource for quite awhile that I am aware of. Those who do not work here need no authority here nor any "tools" —Maury (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Read Wikisource:Adminship — it gives access to tools to configure some components of the system, to view certain other componets, and to make/enforce decisions of the general community by their consensus or delegation of authority. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • support—While all it took was Kathleen's magic validation wand to encourage me to continue with Mrs. Coates' works during a time, I certainly feel she deserves to keep the more important(?) tools in her bag of tricks as well. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • supportIneuw talk 22:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support—without question Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — Plenty of contribution activity and that alone lead to more than enough logged Admin activity for me in 12 months. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportAdamBMorgan (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2014-01 confirmation[edit]

Administrator since August 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions, logs, crosswiki). Kathleen.wright5 will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority.