Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/BirgitteSB
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Hesperian in topic BirgitteSB
 | 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. |
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)
- Appointed—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
2009-02 confirmation
The following discussion is closed:
Confirmed
| status | administrator since December 2005 — bureaucrat since January 2008 |
|---|---|
| activity | active (contributions, logs) |
| discussions |
|
- Support; great record. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Hesperian 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support! John Vandenberg (chat) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support :-) billinghurst (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ---Zyephyrus (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jeepday (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- As above Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Sheldon. 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Jack Merridew 08:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Retain. Does continual good work. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nonunbit, ideal community member. —Pathoschild 03:22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Bedrock of the community. FloNight (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ResScholar (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Closed: confirmed—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2010-03 confirmation
Administrator since December 2005, bureaucrat since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BirgitteSB will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
- Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Hesperian 11:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep. Jude (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. has a cool girly sig and the self-possession to put authority behind it among a group of mostly lunk-headed guys. ResScholar (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Phe (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Does quality work on the project. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Closed, confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
2011-04 confirmation
Admin since December 2005; bureaucrat since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BirgitteSB will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
- support Billinghurst (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- support — George Orwell III (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- support --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support I usually don't vote here as silence is approval. But in this case I felt a little more then silent support was in order. Birgitte is doing a great job it what has been an atypical year. Jeepday (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support, exemplary crat. Hesperian 12:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support - ResScholar (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
2012-05 confirmation
The following discussion is closed:
confirmed — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Admin since December 2005; bureaucrat since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BirgitteSB will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
- keep — billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep --Mpaa (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep — George Orwell III (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep—Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep --Eliyak T·C 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep — Ineuw talk 14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep--Jusjih (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
2013-06 confirmation
Admin since December 2005; bureaucrat since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BirgitteSB will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
- Support--Mpaa (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Support MODCHK (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)- Support —Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Jusjih (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support — George Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Maury (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support — ResScholar (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2014-07 confirmation
Admin since December 2005; bureaucrat since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BirgitteSB will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
- Support — Ineuw talk 01:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support — AuFCL (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Jusjih (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 16:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support — George Orwell III (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
2015-08 confirmation (unsuccessful)
Admin since December 2005; bureaucrat since January 2008 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). BirgitteSB will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.
- Note: Last edit here 13 June 2014. Apparently globally inactive. Hesperian 02:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Globally inactive; no edits on any project for over a year. Remove per current policy on inactivity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)- Admin:
Neutral, bureaucrat: Oppose Gone for a year, and has backed off editing for a while. I have no concerns about editing, though time to return the 'crat bit. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC) - Oppose both admin and bureaucrat flags for inactivity over a year.--Jusjih (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Not confirmed Hesperian 03:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Removal of access requested.[1] I would also like to add that I emailed BirgitteSB several weeks ago as a courtesy, advising them of this discussion and the likely outcome. I did not receive a reply, and BirgitteSB has not re-appeared here, so it would certainly appear that they have moved on. Hesperian 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Access removed.[2] Hesperian 04:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)