Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BirgitteSB

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Don't Feed the Zords (talk | contribs) at 17:41, 28 March 2008 (→BirgitteSB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BirgitteSB

Voice your opinion (talk page) (61/12/7); Scheduled to end 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BirgitteSB (talk · contribs) - I am pleased 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 several years 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 and her excellent peer-reviews of bacteria and evolution. 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]
copied from below:I honestly expect to review deleted pages reasonably often in my backlog work. There were two pages last week I came across that had tags six months older than the earliest edit which I would have like to review. The fact the one of these articles didn't get the attention I expected when I posted a review request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive134#Antam Sanskar is why I accepted the nomination this time when I have declined in the past.--BirgitteSB 22:26, 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?

Issue:Although there have been others, I imagine you are referring to the primary/secondary issue. The written policy has had simplistic explanations of what constitutes primary and secondary sources. And in the past has stated a preference for using secondary sources and advised against the heavy use of primary sources. There are a few problems with this. For one different areas of scholarship define these sources differently. So someone with a science background would recognize a text as a secondary source while historian might know it to be a primary source and vice versa. Another issue is the fact that the written policy speaks as though a text is inherently a primary source or a secondary source. As if you could stamp it "Secondary Source", and that determination would always be correct. Even using the way Wikipedia intends to define them, the same exact text, or even same passage, can be used as either a primary or secondary source depending on the context. Alot of it has to do with perspective. Twenty years from now every source Wikipedia is now using to cover the 2008 US presidential election will considered primary. Anything written about this sunject right now is simply to close to the event to have enough perspective to be used as secondary source by then. However a newspaper investigation about Obama's relationship with his church is still more secondary than a speech by Obama on the subject.
Process: I think the process of altering policy pages is broken and that the recent issue was one of a long line of examples to prove that. I can show you similar problems with editing that page from 2005. It nothing new, but it still a sad thing. People who have long watched the page have seen so many problems over the years that their patience has been worn away. Editors new to policy areas do not know that the process is broken, and their attempts to edit like they would anywhere else on Wikipedia are often disastrous. One real attempt to fix the process was Wikipedia:Attribution which would have been a fresh start as well as eliminated issues with one policy changing to contradict closely related policies. (Note: WP:ATT was not intended as an attempt to fix policy) No one person can be blamed for the broken process here, even those who clearly been problems during one attempt at editing played a very helpful role during other attempts. However most people don't realize this scale.
Outcome: The current wording: Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. I find this to be an improvement over the older advice. Regarding the explanations of primary/secondary, I think few people who have looked into the issue are really happy with the current wording. However a changing it not only requires a better explanation to exist, but for the new explanation to be so much of an improvement that a broad group think it is worth dealing with the broken process of editing a policy page. That bar hasn't been reached yet, but it I beleive it to be just a matter of time.

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

The article I most proud of sourcing didn't come from working with unreferenced articles, but from a user who came to the talk page of Wikipedia:Verifiabilty asking for help. Another editor was planning of removing a large amount of sourced material from Marcel Lefebvre, because when it had been originally referenced no pages numbers were given. He was going to remove the material lacking the more recent standard of citations. I couldn't convince him that this was as inapporiate as I believe it to be despite an RfC. I found the path of least resistance was to visit a local University and find the page numbers myself. This was an uncommon book but the University is Jesuit so they have considerable material on Catholic subjects. Unfortuanately when I got to the library I found the biography they had was in the original French. Luckily, I am reasonable with written French and it helped that I knew what I was looking for. In the end I was able to source the page numbers for nearly evrything threatened with removal.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. In the discussion below you indicated a need to for the tools to review deleted documents for your backlog work. Could you explain what your backlog work is? And how would being able to review deleted articles facilitate your contributions to wikipedia?

I work on backlogs where the tags were placed on the article over a year ago. One the reasons I started doing this work not so much to fix the below-average article but to find real problems that have slipped through the cracks. Some people may read an article and think is BS But rather than take the time to investigate if it is true, they will tag it with {{unreferenced}} and hope someone else checks it out. A lot of articles which are far from our MOS (especially short bullets points) turn out to be copyvios. I want find the big problems that have been missed for a long period of time. The age factor means the category has a much higher ratio of inactionable tags than if you randomly examined articles with that tag. So first I try and cull the category. Alot of times whoever originally tagged the article didn't watchlist it, and some people are timid about removing a tag regarding their own work. So with {{unreferenced}}, if references now exist on the article I would remove it or replace it with another tag like {{primarysources}}. Regarding {{clean-up}}, I look at the history to see the state of the article when the tag was placed and if there is significant improvement I remove it. Sometimes there are articles which have been created fully-formed much more recently than the date on the tag. In those cases I would definitely like to look at the deleted edits and figure what happened and if it is a problem or not (at the least there is likely GFDL issues). After the category is culled then it is easier to see what actually need attention and work on them. A lot of times I will try and get a category down under 50 and put it on the Community Noticeboard to try and bring more people into the backlogs. I've experimented with the notices and people ignore larger categories so it important to either find smallish ones or make them smallish. I also try to keep Category:Wikipedia backlog updated and watch for empty categories to tag for speedy deletion.--BirgitteSB 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Registered alternate account

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]
    For the record, I have no problem with the answer to Q1, but one logical reason I can think of is that someone who is not active in admin work might not remember the correct way to use the tools the next time they're picked up. (FWIW, that can easily be counteracted by reading instructions each time they're used.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree. Since I only occasionally close AfDs, I can never remember off the top of my head what the correct closing procedure is with the various AfD templates, but that's what the instructions are for. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also point out that I am quite experienced at using the tools. I didn't even have think twice about the history merge I did yesterday (which is something I had to be walked through the first three times), for example. I will be using admin tools regularly, even if not on this wiki. On my primary wiki, adminstrators have the tools removed if they are inactive for six months. I would not have accepted if I thought I would be inactive by that standard. I honestly expect to review deleted pages reasonably often in my backlog work. There were two pages last week I came across that had tags six months older than the earliest edit which I would have like to review. I can't promise how often I will use a loggable tool (I do ocassionaly see deletable prods in the backlogs), but I can promise I will ask for advice if a tool is completely new to me and otherwise I will always review local instructions just because it easy to get mixed up about differences in policy between wikis.--BirgitteSB 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Birgitte, this is something you should add to question 1---while you may not use the tools in the traditional manner, if admin buttons could help you fill your niche better, then you should highlight that fact. If there is a reason to be able to review deleted materials, and you see that reason, share it above---one of the big reasons why people oppose per your Q1 is because you don't demonstrate a need. You just indicated a need---it's not the traditional need that people generally anticipate---but it's a need nonetheless!Balloonman (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support Dlohcierekim 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded rationale- meets User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA. Agree with Dorftottel and Ral. Opposition concerns aside, this would be a net positive. Dlohcierekim 14:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no validity in the "does not need the tools argument." In fact, I believe it is an argument to be avoided. In Q1 the candidate says they will use the tools infrequently. That is not a reason to not let them use them at all. Dlohcierekim 20:06, 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]
    Ral, I think what's getting to the opposers (and I don't really like speaking for all of them) is not just that the candidate won't be as active as other administrators, but the answer is lackadaisical and indifferent sounding. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll grant that your oppose is probably based on those grounds (which are substantially more valid), but most of the opposition, based on their own words, is predicated on a perceived "lack of need" for adminship, not the tone of the comment. I have never seen, and really cannot see, the reasoning for denying a trusted user adminship merely because they will not be as active as other administrators. Ral315 (talk) 17:05, 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
    I for one think the answer to question 1 is perfectly fine. Dorftrottel (criticise) 11:49, 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]
  16. Support It's all just about trust, isn't it? And do we sack admins who aren't terribly active?--Habashia (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good candidate. Agree with Angus above that many of the opposes are absurd. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Certainly. Qualified and trusted users should be given the tools, regardless of whether they intend to become active in administrative areas or not. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I see no red flags. Qualified editor. Knows Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, excellent trustworthy editor and content contributor, I'm reassured by answer 1 and unconvinced by the worn-out logic of the opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - So a user gets opposed for not being as active? I thought RfA was about if we can trust this user, which I can, at least. Soxred93 | talk bot 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - for me the frequency with which the tools will be used is of minor importance so long as I am happy that when they are used it will be wisely. Which I am. nancy (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per answer to question 1. Also, a very civil user who will not abuse the tools even if they are not used much. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support -- Meets my standards; I have no concerns; gnomes don't need to be here a lot. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support—Who wants another drone-mop? I'm quite happy with the response to Question 1; the applicant is a good member of the community and performs valuable tasks. That's enough for me. Tony (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per answer to Q1. I will always respect an honest answer. The tools are free, they don't age, they don't rust. (as Pedro has stated before). You won't abuse them or misuse them. You've been here too long and I trust that you will proceed with the same care and cautiion that you have as an editor. What else is there to consider? If you use the tools at the rate of once per year, fine by me! It's one less good standing editor that needs to ask for admin action when he/she needs it and can do it his/her self uncontroversially, and trusted by the community to do as much. Happy to support, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I strongly support this nomination, and am also reminded of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan: being active occasionally and using the tools only once a week (or a month) is perfectly acceptable. Regarding question 1, if BirgitteSB had answered with the "standard RfA answer" with something like "I intend to take part in AIV to block vandals, in CSD to delete pages that meet the WP:CSD criteria, and RFPP to protect pages that need protecting. I also plan to close XFDs when the discussions are finished." instead of being honest like she has been with her answer, she wouldn't have the opposition she has now, and that's a shame really. I would much, much rather prefer an honest admin who uses the tools sparingly but effectively than one who uses them often and abusively. After all, people do have something called real lives, and nobody has said why BirgitteSB would abuse or misuse the tools at all, and "need" for the tools is irrelevant: there is no limit on the amount of mops available, and if someone will put the tools to good use, why deny them adminship? BirgitteSB is a great candidate. Acalamari 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to Ral up above just for clarification, at least my own really. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Acalamari: I'm always happy to know people remember DrKiernan-gate (I naively thought at the time that the "no need for the tools" argument had been debunked once and for all. Silly me.) By the way, despite DrKiernan's best assurances that he would barely use the tools if at all, it seems he was blatantly lying to us all. He has deleted over a thousand pages and imposed around a hundred blocks, as well as the occasional protection. Raise your hand if you think his promotion was a stupid mistake. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the promotion of DrKiernan was a great decision, and think the same will happen here. Acalamari 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, I don't see any reason not to. Hemmingsen 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support; not using the tools much isn't a reason to deny all uses. Responsible editor, and no hint of probable misuse. — Coren (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support for the honesty in answering Q1. No other concerns. Acalamari makes excellent points, really. I would strongly urge the Opposers below to reconsider their comments. Nick (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Remember instances when I thought she was particularly sensible though I do not remember the context. And a quick review does not show anything worrying. But I see that people still want to oppose for not "needing" tools. Demanding a minimum work limit or activity from volunteers... that's rich.. :D - TwoOars 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I see that people still want to oppose for not "needing" tools." — You hopeless optimist. I'd say they just want to oppose and pick or pick up any available or conceivable reason. It just so happens to be "no need" in this particular case. Dorftrottel (talk) 22:47, March 27, 2008
  33. Support- The oppose concerns are outweighed by the good work this user has (and will) do. Good luck...--Cameron (t/c) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. User can be trusted with the tools. Whether or not she uses them is irrelevant. "Inactive" administrators do not harm Wikipedia. Tan | 39 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Nothing to make me believe that Brigette will misuse the tools. My measurement is "misuse", not "fail-to-use". Sure, it'd be great to have admins who are hyper-active, but Brigette will probably be with us for the long run, and what's the danger in giving her the tools? - Philippe | Talk 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - clearly trustworthy, will be a net positive for the 'pedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 100% Rock Solid Support. I have complete confidence that this editor will use the tools to benefit the project. She is on my list of users that I would ask a question if I need an opinion about a difficult issue. I find her comments in discussions to be extremely well reasoned, even if I do not completely agree with her. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. (ec)Support — "lackadaisical and indifferent sounding"? That's the ticket. I find this wise, and looking at the candidate, I would be of the understanding that she won't misuse the tools, given her experience — and obviously she can't, if she does not decide to use them. Some the opposers really ought to chill out. BirgitteSB will be a fine admin. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. By all accounts a thoughtful and experienced user; while I don't know her personally, no-one seems to be saying they don't trust her and many are saying they do. Not all of our mopsters need to zealously run around with the mop all the time. We need more reasonable people who have a mop available when they come across a situation when needed. Martinp (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support after reviewing alternate account contribs. I would really, really like to see more activity in the deletion or anti-vandal areas, but I'm not finding anything to make me believe there will be problems.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I've been very impressed by Birgitte, and I think she would make an excellent admin. I think she has just the right temperament for the job, and a broad set of skills and knowledge. Willow (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per WP:AGF. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. The only questions that matter to me in considering an RfA are: "Is this person here to build an encyclopedia?" and "Can we trust this person with administrative tools?" The answer to both is a resounding "yes" for this editor. --Laser brain (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support This is an obviously qualified candidate, and the community can only benefit from giving her the tools. Question 1 is hardly a worry for me, as "no need for tools" has been debunked time and time again; I'm quite disappointed in the members of our community who have opposed over this. Further, now that Birgitte has updated her Q1 answer to clarify exactly how she will use the tools with her backlog work, I'm even more sure that giving her the mop will be an overwhelming positive. GlassCobra 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support. Most definitely. I agree with GlassCobra in saying that "no need for the tools" is a ridiculous reason to oppose. I would like to say that Birgitte will "Do no harm" and will have a positive, rather than negative effect on Wikipedia because of the +sysop flag. Best of luck to you Birgitte, Malinaccier (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I'm puzzled by all the hoopla surrounding her answer to Q1, especially coming from administrators. Sure, admins clear backlogs and while there are a few workhorses out there, the fact is many admin accounts do relatively little as far as closing XfDs, speedy deleting stuff, working at AIV. Yet, even when we are not working specifically on admin backlogs, we still routinely use the tools simply to be better editors. Access to deleted revisions can be extremely informative when trying to understand an editorial conflict. Access to deleted contributions often allows one to realize that editor X with 3 harmless junk edits has in fact created 10 hoax articles and needs to be blocked. There's this myth going around that being an admin is a mysterious super-complex endeavour which requires years of studying policy and understanding its finer points. It's not, especially if you're a responsible person unlikely to start using these tools in areas you're not familiar with. From what I can see, BigitteSB has shown a sense of responsibility and has shown dedication to wiki-projects. The net-effect of her adminship can only be positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen. Keegantalk 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Well said. Dlohcierekim 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. In general I like to see more article writing and I will argue to the end why that is important. But what a few in the oppose camp didn't look into closely enough is the type of experience that this user has that more than fulfills the spirit of why article writing is important. Article writing isn't just important for an admin for the sake of it, it's important so that a user understands what kind of struggles go into deciding what content should be kept and not, and how our policies (content and behavioral) interact with that. BirgitteSB has very clearly demonstrated those understandings in important ways beyond what most well qualified admins do through the types of experiences she has, particularly the example of working with unsourced articles and going and sourcing them by hand after working on an RfC related to the article content. Furthermore this user is so trustworthy that the doesn't need the tools argument is moot and doesn't sway me at all anyway considering that she has demonstrated some important use for the tools, and some is better than none. The tools are not limited folks we can give them to everyone that won't misuse them and I argue we should. - Taxman Talk 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Birgitte is a good person who would do good things with the bit, as much or as little as she can do. The point of a wiki is that every little bit counts :) She'll be just fine. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - don't see there being any problems. Guest9999 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, fine answers. MrPrada (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support will be a good sysop. abf /talk to me/ 08:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. You seem to be sane, and, you're a sysop/crat on another WMF project[1]. You've been around for a bit[2][3]. Ordinarily, I'd like to see more edits to AIV, to see how you'd be with the block button. Rather than look for one or two instances where you've made a mistake, your Deleted contribs show plenty of good CSD taggings, and prods. You appear to be smart and civil. Overall, I don't see a reason why I wouldn't trust you to use the tools in a responsible manner if or if not you decide to use them. BTW, the templates above in the RfA, why do they link to User:BirgitteSB-prod? SQLQuery me! 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She has two accounts, there are templates for both of them. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support After reviewing the opposers here and the candidates work. Even if the candidate uses the tools just once every six months that's not a reason not to have them. Per Keeper (i.e. per me!) they don't rust and we don't have a limited ammount to give out. I appreciate the candidate could have made a "better job" of Q1 but the excellent contribution history gives me confidence. On balance; no harm + potential good = a net positive to the encyclopedia. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  11:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Outstanding candidate, has knowldege of the tools from wikiquote (who I've come across a lot when I've been retrieving quotes for portals). An extremely friendly user, rather baseless opposes (especially ones regarding the answer to answer one), clueful–just everything that is needed in an administrator is displayed in Birgitte. Rudget. 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Per Q1. Honesty is not a virtue to be taken lightly. J.delanoygabsadds 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Sure. Trustworthy enough, and if she feels like she could use the tools, why not? - Bobet 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. -- Naerii 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support as a response to unconvincing opposes. If an editor is trusted to use the tools, it does not matter that s/he will only use them on an infrequent basis. There's no upper limit on the number of admins, so promoting less active editors to adminship does no inherent harm. As long as the candidate is trustworthy enough - which it appears that she is, per comments of others above (who have reviewed the candidate more thoroughly than I have) - then I have no problem with promotion. WaltonOne 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Don't Feed the Zords (talk) 17:41, 28 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]
    Why would you suggest a withdraw, even as early as you placed your opinion? This is hardly one that would be SNOWed. GlassCobra 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion for withdraw was based on the conclusion that becomning admin for the sake of wanting the tools only to have them, and use them rarely would be seen as a bad reason in general for RfA. I said nothing about SNOW. You don't need SNOW to withdraw a nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, when I first posted my comments above, it was heading towards SNOW. The vote was 3-7 and when I finished my rationale above it was 4/8. So early on, it looked like a doomed RfA.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 28 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]
    Oppose per SynergeticMaggot and answer to Q1. —αἰτίας •discussion• 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC) changed to Neutral —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I stopped reading this RfA after reading the answer to question #1 --Charitwo talk 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. 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
    And I would add as an answer to Od Mishehu's unasked question, so that on that "rare occasion" where a trusted user actually does need them, she has them, and doesn't have to ask an admin for help. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per answer to Question 1, we already have many editors who become admins for the powers but don't really have the intention of using it and thus are deemed inactive. I prefer active editors to become admins and she is a perfect candidate but if she doesn't intend to use it, I doubt she needs it ...--Cometstyles 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Tiptoety and Wisdom89. TheProf - T / C 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Yep, Q1 was the dealbreaker for me also. If this is a "secondary" wiki to you, then you have no need for the mop here, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh rly? *shows the o rly owl* Which policy says you can't be an admin in a secondary WMF wiki? I don't see such rationale to oppose when I ran for Wikispecies' bureaucratship. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - answer on Q1 says you don't need the tools. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please outline under which set of circumstances a user would possibly need the tools? Also, this discussion is about trustability with, not need for the tools. Dorftrottel (criticise) 17:08, March 27, 2008
    While we are at it, let's kick out every user who doesn't "need" to edit wikipedia. In short, let's kick out everyone. It would be fun. - TwoOars 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We mustn't stop with editors. Let's kick out readers unless they pledge to read Wikipedia a lot and that they need it. I propose that a reader must promise us that they will browse at least 100 Wikipedia articles in a week, and they must tell us which sections of Wikipedia they will browse in advance. Following the logic of the "oppose per Q1" editors, there's no value in a small benefit, people must read Wikipedia either a lot or not at all. --JayHenry (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting concept. We could set up a frequent reader program. Casual readers who drop by once a month should not be allowed to just hog all the resources. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Reluctantly oppose per answer to Question 1. User does not seem to require administrative tools. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not happy with answer to Question 1 and if only secondary wiki no need for admin tools IMHO. BigDunc (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
    I've added some links to her peer-review work. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I'm on the fence with this one and may move it to oppose. I appreciate that some admins may be more active than others, and even though any contribution done as an admin is advantageous to the project, the candidate's response to Q1 does not strike me as particularly well thought out. Saying you don't intend to be very active as an admin because this wiki is secondary to you really doesn't do much for your nomination and it seriously begs the question why you want to become an administrator here when you consider it subordinate to another wiki. I also would've liked to have seen some kind of article building, i.e. a GA or FA. But can I also ask fellow editors to at least read the entire RFA before they comment on it, as to discard the entire thing so quickly feels like playing devil's advocate, rather than forming a balanced good faith response based on the whole perspective. WilliamH (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Really excellent communication on talk pages, which is a must for an admin. And while I'm a fan of wiki-gnomes, being one myself, I'm not seeing lots of contributions that show understanding (or lack of understanding) of policies. Quite a bit of recent work is removing cleanup tags from stub articles (with an edit summary of "stub's don't get tagged with {{cleanup}}", which is sure news to me), and removing unref tags from articles that have references. I only saw a couple of instances of deletion work (participating in AfDs, nominating for prod or speedy deletion, etc.) and a couple of instances of vandal fighting. I'd love to support if I could see that this editor understands those areas, but I'm not finding enough examples. Sorry.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My fault I'm afraid, I forgot to add the stats for her alternate account User:BirgitteSB-prod that she used for quite a lot of her AfD and prod work. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to weak support after reviewing alternate account contribs.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Long-term editor with great work sourcing articles. I utterly disagree with most of the "need for the tools" arguments. However, like Fabrictramp, I'm concerned at the editor's understanding of the utility of tagging stubs, for example, removing "refimprove" tags from stubs which definitely need more referencing. Also, back in June 2007 there was an incident where her subsidiary account was blocked for multiple inappropriate use of prod for controversial deletions, and I'm not seeing much subsequent use of the deletion processes to make me comfortable with giving the editor the delete button. Sorry. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I think the summary you provided of the block is inaccurate. While I agree that I misunderstood what should be tagged {{prod}} at the time, the block was also due to the administrator believing the account to be a bot. I was easily convinced that my tagging was inappropriate, once I was alerted to the issue, and quickly to agreed to change my behavior. Short of never making a mistake in the first place, I would like to know what more I could have done at the time to inspire confidence in myself. Afterwords I seldom used prod (never inappropriately as far as I know) but took several items through AfD (that account has an AfD script installed). I haven't had any in so long because we are still working on June 2006 and all the articles needing deletion have already been located. I imagine when we get to July 2006 there will be some more hoaxes discovered and I will continue to build my confidence in what is an uncontroversial delete through AfD nominations while using prod only where I am completely confident of this. For the record my confidence level on the issue was pretty low after this incident and I think you can see the AfD's I did were rather uncontraversial. There are obvious hoaxes that I would be confident prodding today while I would still not be confident prodding something for notability in most all cases.
    Regarding stubs and {{refimprove}}: I actually used to add {{refimprove}} to stubs when removing {{unreferenced}}. I have since been convinced that stubs only need a general reference and the {{refimprove}} is inappropriate for stubs. Now I remove it when I see it on a stub. I will point out that there are people who think stubs shouldn't even be tagged with {{unreferenced}} at all and other people will tag a stub with {{expand}} (which I remove as well). I think my understanding of what tags are appropriate for stubs is well-supported and a rather median position within the realm of opinions on the matter.--BirgitteSB 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Changed to neutral per Acalamari and Sharkface217. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per Q1, and per Sharkface. SpencerT♦C 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BirgitteSB&oldid=201620666"