Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Kathleen.wright5

2008-08 admin

 * - edit count

I know how use the Admin. tools because I'm an Admin at WikiChristian * 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)
 * 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. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 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)
 * 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 Dissident  Talk 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

2009-09 confirmation

 * 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? 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, 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)


 * Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

2010-10 confirmation

 * Keep; no concerns this time. Hesperian 04:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good activity, monitors various topics/areas. George Orwell III (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support no concerns. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; is working well.--Longfellow (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2011-11 confirmation

 * Support, --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support — ResScholar (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support yes! — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2012-12 confirmation

 * 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)
 * support — billinghurst  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 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)
 * support— Ineuw 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)
 * Support—AdamBMorgan (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

 * —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 16:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --Mpaa (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — George Orwell III (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , just for all the validation, let alone all the other work - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

2015-02 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * support — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * support--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2016-03 confirmation

 * , easily. BD2412 T 03:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Zyephyrus (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - too many (simplistic) errors. AuFCL (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: specifically in admin tasks?— Mpaa (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Her record of admin tasks shows useful exercise of the tools. We are better off for her having them. Errors can be corrected, directly or by instruction. BD2412 T 17:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If BD2412 is making an offer to mentor her as needed then I am satisfied. AuFCL (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll have to state the issue more precisely. Looking through the history of Kathleen's talk page, I don't see anywhere that you approached her concerning any issues, so we're none the wiser. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Echoing Mpaa's question, do you mean "(simplistic) errors" with respect to proofreading, or with respect to use of admin tools? BD2412 T 01:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may choose to believe this or no: I have pondered this sub-thread and come to the conclusion that the parties who have already committed their votes are not entitled to further discussion without invalidating their votes; and those who have not voted should undertake their own research before making their own uninfluenced decision. In any case I shall not discuss the candidate further in public forum. If this is felt to be too legalistic an interpretation then that is too bad. I consider the matter closed until at the very least the next voting cycle. AuFCL (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As you wish, but providing diffs in support of an assertion about editing issues is pretty standard practice. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anybody is entitled to his/her opinion and I am not questioning that. Given AuFCL's comment, I just wanted to know if I missed something important, for sure I didn't want to open Pandora box. As the conversation is going off topic, I am satisfied with my current opinion and, AFAIAC, we can close it here.— Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like that clarification too, rather than the vague statement. Logged actions are at Special:Log/Kathleen.wright5, and at face value, only 1 decision that I see has been emended. There is nothing on the talk page to indicate any issues, and I too would have a general expectation that if a user has issues with another person's approach/performance that they would be initially addressed to the user so that the person could self-correct/reflect/comment. There are 500 edits in the past month, so I too would hope that diffs to a specific issue. I will await the clarification. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I (as I would have thought you too!) come from a culture where it is not customary to badger a voter after their decision has been made. This has now become a matter of personal principle: I have made my decision and will not under any circumstances be moved. If anybody else reveals themselves to have been too lazy as to have researched their own position before committing to a vote that is hardly my problem. At least I have learned this lesson: in the current community never to reveal a shred of my reasoning for coming to any conclusion of even the mildest political nature. I despair, in varying ways, for you all—this is yet another less than proud moment. Unless explicitly disenfranchised I expect my right to express an opinion in future will continue. AuFCL (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support your right to have an opinion, and to have your own opinion. I am not wishing for you to change your opinion. I was interested in your opinion and your reasoning, and if you are not willing to elaborate, that is entirely your choice. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —C. F. 15:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Prosody (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . Positive and constructive contributor to the site. Useful to retain the tools to provide benefit to our Wikisource community. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * admin functions handled well, and seeks advice, or other opinion when requested to do so by users. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

2017-04 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * — Hrishikes (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * sure — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Jusjih (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Dick Bos (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

2018-05 confirmation

 * , as there is no strongest possible support template. BD2412 T 15:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — Hrishikes (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — Ineuw talk 20:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * --Prosfilaes (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , but more edit summaries would be better.--Jusjih (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

2019-06 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BD2412 T 13:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --Jusjih (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --Xover (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --Dick Bos (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ineuw (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

2020-07 confirmation

 * BD2412 T 22:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * --Xover (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ミラP 22:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . Must have been too busy to use edit summaries for page namespace?--Jusjih (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

2021-08 confirmation

 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * --Jusjih (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * --Xover (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

2022-09 confirmation

 * PseudoSkull (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * --Jusjih (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

2023-10 confirmation

 * PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * --Xover (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Must have been too busy to always use edit summaries?--Jusjih (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)