Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BirgitteSB: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
support
Angusmclellan (talk | contribs)
64,067 edits
Line 58: Line 58:
#'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. For me, the only legitimate reason to oppose giving someone the tools is fear that he'd misuse them. I have yet to find a reason to believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools. '''''[[User:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]] [[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="red">R</font>]]''''' 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. For me, the only legitimate reason to oppose giving someone the tools is fear that he'd misuse them. I have yet to find a reason to believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools. '''''[[User:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]] [[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="red">R</font>]]''''' 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
#Per JayHenry, although ''absurd'' is perhaps rather weak. Any time I've come across BirgitteSB she's been doing good work without any drama. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 11:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


=====Oppose=====
=====Oppose=====

Revision as of 11:09, 27 March 2008

BirgitteSB

Voice your opinion (talk page) (14/7/3); Scheduled to end 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BirgitteSB (talk · contribs) - I am pleaased to nominating BirgitteSB for adminship because the user has my trust and trust of the community is the number one criteria for adminship in my book. A contributer since July 2005 with edits in multiple areas of Wikipedia, not a lot of volume but a lot of quality. I first encountered this editor on the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles almost a year ago and was impressed with their devotion to and knowledge of the Wikiprocess. I would like to invite the community to support this editor who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for years, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy. Jeepday (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated by TimVickers - I have been impressed for a long time by Birgitte's calmness and good sense, so I'm glad she has finally acquiesced to being nominated as an administrator. I'd particularly recommend people read this section of her userpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.--BirgitteSB 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I honestly don't intend to be very active as an admin here, as this is a secondary wiki to me. Even though there has been times I would used admin abilities in the past, including the past week, it has been more in regard to situations have I stumbled upon rather than my planning to do focus on "admin work".--BirgitteSB 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I mostly do gnomish work to articles. I also try to keep backlog information updated and pick out instances where I think broader attention can bring big results for listing on the Community Noticeboard. However, I think I am proudest of contributions that have been in talk space. The proud of the change in what was done about non-latin usernames that I promoted. Although sometimes frustration got the best of me during that time and I am not proud of every edit I made regarding the issue. I am proud of sticking with the issue for so long and following up on it until it was fully implemented. Overall, in fits and starts, it was several months of reasserting the issue and following-up throughout many different pages to see the practice changed. As far as actual edits I am particularly proud of, I would have to say they are the apologies I have needed to make. Both because of they are particularly hard to write and because of the gracious replies and understanding that follow them which always renews my belief in this project.--BirgitteSB 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:Definitely. Mostly I try not to edit while stressed out, but there have been lapses over the years! When it comes to specific disputes, my philosophy is that it isn't about winning against any opponent but rather about making progress on the issue. If it is impossible to make progress; I make my opinion clear, stress what it is based on and then leave it. Sometimes no matter how correct you may be about something the timing or the participants are just not going work out. I have discovered that six-months can sometimes be the difference between beating your head against a brick wall and finding complete agreement.--BirgitteSB 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from Balloonman

4. Can you summarize the NOR issue that you were involved with for people who are unfamiliar with it (or don't have the patience to read the whole issue? What are your thoughts about the process and the outcome?

5. In dealing with unreferenced articles, what article are you most proud of sourcing? Why?

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/BirgitteSB before commenting.

Discussion

  • A lot has been made of Birgitte's answer to Q1, while I think it could have been done better, I do think that we should remember that use of the tools is not the ultimate criteria. I believe that I am a decent admin that people (as a whole) trust and respect. I've been an admin for about 8 months now. During those 8 months, I've blocked 23 people (all vandals--and one mistake (tagged the wrong person--sorry Equazcion)), deleted 33 pages, and protected 5 pages. I am by far and away not the most active admins when it comes to use of the tools, but I do think my being an admin has been a net positive over the past 8 months. Having reviewed Birgitte's contributions to the project, I think her being an admin would be a net boon for wikipedia---even if she rarely uses the tools! Being an admin is not about the tools... in fact, if that is what you think being an admin is about, then you have it all wrong!Balloonman (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposes per Q1 are a text book example of one of the arguments to avoid in such discussions: Wikipedia:AAAD#Doesn't need the tools. It's just an essay, but I'd be curious to see a logical counterargument to this pretty well-respected community standard. --JayHenry (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support Dlohcierekim 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I think this user will do good with the tools. Nice answers too.--RyRy5 talk 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Every trusted helping hand is a hand. BrigitteSB has been a solid contributor on more than one Wikimedia project for several years. Please don't oppose because the user doesn't desire to be aggressive. Keegantalk 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, as a nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why the hell not? Opposing someone because they won't be as active as other administrators is absurd; it's not like there's a limit on the number of administrators we can have. Ral315 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Q1 is of definate concern, but the issue is not how active will a person be, but do we trust her with the tools? Not every admin is as involved as some (I know there are admins who block more people in a week than I have since i became an admin.) Do I trust her? Yes... I say that having reviewed her edits/talk page and based upon the quality of people who nominated her. Does she meet my criteria for admin? Not really. I personally like to see more edits and article building, but I also like to see people promoted who fill unusual niches. Birgitte fills a niche that most of us don't bother with and don't care about. She is very active in finding sources for unsourced articles. She is also active in discussions on many different subjects---including but not limited to a very contentious debate concerning OR. Will she be our garden variety admin? No, but I think having an admin who frequents unusual spots (the places most of us don't go) can be beneficial. Also finding sources for the unsual is article building, just via a different venueBalloonman (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Ral315. The current opposes based on planned activity are, as Ral notes, absurd and this is an otherwise good candidate with an extremely lenghty track record of thoughtful participation. --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Agree strongly with Balloonman's sentiments above. Dean B (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support It's good that she isn't going to let the tools distract her from her more important work. Epbr123 (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. Dorftrottel (warn) 09:24, March 27, 2008
  11. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Support - She seems to know what she's doing, she's civil and helpful in dealing with other editors, and she does a lot of good work around the 'pedia. As someone far smarter than I once said, the tools don't rust if they're not used, and it's not like we have only a limited quantity to give out anyway. --jonny-mt 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. For me, the only legitimate reason to oppose giving someone the tools is fear that he'd misuse them. I have yet to find a reason to believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools. Rami R 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per JayHenry, although absurd is perhaps rather weak. Any time I've come across BirgitteSB she's been doing good work without any drama. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Lack of experience with article building and project space. Also, the answer to Q1. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. (ec) Actually the very same reason. I don't intend to support someone who doesn't wish to use the tools that often. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Wisdom has it as usual. Not enough article building. I disagree that not using the tools is an issue (if anything it's a plus not to be on a power trip) but Wisdom's argument stands. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per SynergeticMaggot and answer to Q1. —αἰτίας •discussion• 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I stopped reading this RfA after reading the answer to question #1 --Charitwo talk 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Q1, if you don't intend to use the tools why request them? You can still be a good editor/contributor without the tools. Tiptoety talk 05:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. On the rare occasion he finds a case where the tools are needed, there are a lot of admins already. If he doesn't intend to help with the general work load, why give him the tools? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? Dorftrottel (troll) 10:47, March 27, 2008
Neutral
  1. Neutral per Q1. But she does seem like a good editor so I can't find something major with which to give an Oppose for. -WarthogDemon 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Also per Q1. I don't think it's something I should oppose for. --Sharkface217 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral pending a little more information on article-writing. I'd like to see some evidence of appreciation of what constitutes a reliable source, for example. (Note that I think there's nothing wrong with her answer to Q1.) Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BirgitteSB&oldid=201296793"