Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billinghurst

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Billinghurst[edit]

Final: (78/19/4); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Billinghurst (talk · contribs) – This is my first nomination for adminship that will be accepted (unless 76.117.247.55 has a sudden change of heart). And it couldn't be for a finer chap. As a bit of background that many will not know, he had an extensive involvement in RootsWeb for 10 years[1], being the employee responsible for mailing lists and list administrators, and the spam filters, was known for smacking a few heads together as required, and contributed truckloads of material to that project.

He joined English Wikipedia in February 2007, but didn't edit until two days before Christmas. After 49 edits here, he finds his way over to English Wikisource in July 2008 and joins the fledgling s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB (digitising Dictionary of National Biography).

He now has 14,000 edits over on English Wikisource, has been a sysop there since February of this year (RfA), has patrolled 12,000 revisions, and his bot sDrewthbot has another 10,000 edits doing all sorts of general improvements. Please review his contribs and logs over there to gain an appreciation of his dedication and competency for the role of sysop.[2] For those that are not aware, the majority of the admin corps on English Wikisource are admins here, including four stewards, so he rubs shoulders with experienced Wikimedians on a regular basis, and is familiar with administrative methods.

He has over 7000 edits here on English Wikipedia, with over 90% of those being to content. While some may consider that a negative, given his history of administrative involvement in RootsWeb and Wikisource, I consider it to be a positive. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BirgitteSB for a similar RfA, which turned out successful. If you feel the need to oppose due to concerns about his ability to navigate the Wikipedia minefield, please ask him questions and bookmark this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your confidence in me Jayvdb. Happy to accept the nomination. billinghurst (talk)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Continue general tidying, discouraging spamming and vandalism by agreed and accepted means. More work in {{Now Commons}} and transwiki. Thoughtful consideration of issues, and mixing with other admins to jointly advance the project. Find a niche or two where my administration skills can provide benefit, and advance the WP principles, and with the interface of WS and WP, especially where it adds to efficiencies.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Quietly disambiguating, and bringing old works from WikiSource to Wikipedia. Adding crosslinks between WS and WP. Helping to import from WP to WS where the works have been identified. My skills are systems and organisation, while I can and do write, I do not see myself as the composer of A class articles. My contributions are about reflecting on the issues, and what is meant, then thoughtful and qualitative improvements.
Supplementary Ah, my passion? That is to bring evidence of notable people and notable events of past periods to Wikipedia (and who are probably forgotten today), as what I want to see is a better understanding and context of the social history of yesteryear, and the places of the forebears. Also to unearth and reintroduce old texts to current researchers as they contain the facts and opinions of the people at their contemporary time, and have them available as living references. I have recently finished s:List of Carthusians, 1800–1879 which is full of biographical snippets to support WP articles, and I am now working on integration of content, so my best work is still to come. Concurrently working on DNB articles, Author pages, and transcribing contemporary obituary notices of the late 19th and early 20th C. Also working on s:Index:Notes by the Way.djvu for its social commentary. Crosslinking both ways between the WP/WS projects, so many of my best contributions could be links from WS to WP, something like this trio Augustus Jessopp <-> s:Author:Augustus Jessopp <-> Search for Augustus Jessopp
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: No edit wars here. Some involvement with early discussions about date delinking, nothing heated.
Stress? Not worth the stress, this is about enjoyment, and advancing the project. My life skills give me the ability to reason and cope. I utilise time and space. If I cannot be civil, then I don't answer in haste. Type it in draft, get away from it, review the words and post later if still happy.
I don't do blame, I look for solutions. Consult if and as necessary. My job gives me oodles more stressful situations than WP will ever approach.

-- billinghurst (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from S Marshall
4. Please show an edit you have made to a policy or guideline. If you have made no edits to policies or guidelines, please describe an edit you would like to make. If you feel Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so.
A:There is no such thing as a perfect guideline, they cannot cover all situations and circumstances. So it comes to the application of the principle, and the purpose of the guideline. I cannot readily think of one specific edit at WP, though, there will be some at WS. I am consultative and would go via a talk page, and edit based on consensus.
Clarification: Do I understand correctly that you do not support any changes to any policy or guideline whatsoever?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:Policies and guidelines should be regularly reviewed, and adapted and adopted as circumstance and users require. Change is inevitable, an example is the recent licence review. I was more intimating that guidelines are not absolute and cannot be absolute, they align with the overarching principle. [I am trying to not turn this into a terminology discussion]
Further clarification: The answer I'm seeking is, what specific changes to policy or guidelines do you yourself advocate?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:At this point, I am not advocating for any specific changes. I do wish to see a resolution to the wikilink of dates, and I expressed my personal opinions at that time, though the communities decision will be what I follow. I am interested to see how we handle BLP's and patrolling of the edits, though not advocating any position (yet). I will consider the points of view, and the cogent argument. If I have something worthwhile to contribute, then I would do so. I do not come here with a hidden agenda, nor a plan to undertake transformational change.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A-One needs to respect the decision of another admin. Any dire concern that I have with a person would usually be raised directly and privately, and in terms of understanding their POV.
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-I would wave my magic wand and disambiguate all pages perfectly, everyone cheers and there is no argument about any change. Oh how I wish! :-)
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A-A normal user, or an account primarily super-vandal? I generally don't see myself as an account blocker and the terminator, and cannot say that I have seen that behaviour (yet).
Supplementary I assume good faith as good faith is needed, though do not confuse that with a set and forget attitude, I will watch, and will act in accord with the guidelines. Wanton vandalism is unacceptable. I do use the block tool, sometimes for short, sometimes indefinitely. I do undo edits, though with consideration, and with appropriate commentary. I do look for others editing with a vested interest. I also leave people the ability to dispute my decisions and am open to review.
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A-Closing AfDs isn't my priority at this point. At WS, we do Copyright violations and Possible Deletions, there I am looking for a clear decision, where clarity of the decision is better than a quick decision. If consultation takes longer, or another opinion is needed, so be it.
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A-Hmm. Again not a current personal priority. As a user, I would have said that there is not a clear number, it would depend on links, variety and diversity of opinion, time open, etc. Collaboratively built, collaboratively dismantled.
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A-Most definitely. My career would demonstrate that I manage stress, a most necessary skill. WP and WS is for the personal side and fulfilment, it isn't going to be my life, or domininating it. Not being a blame-monster is always a good starting position. :-)
11.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A-Generally I would say articles submitted in good faith should be given a chance to breathe. My subjective opinion is just that, it is not the basis for an objective unilateral action. I believe my edit history would demonstrate that tolerance.
12. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?
A-Yes, and have done so on WS. The Ass Pus vandal is a shining example. Created accounts solely to vandalise, and there is no good faith and never an intent for good faith.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

13.. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?
A:I don't think that the Q.13 or Q.14 are questions specific to this RFA process, they relate to me as a person (admin or general user). As a person, I will have a normal variability in how I would respond, available time, time of day, age of edit, IP or user account, tiredness, ability to respond, possibly even whether it is a high volume page, or my talk page. Weigh up the circumstances and the evidence.
14.. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
A: see A.13
Supplementary Answer: Knowing that there is specific guidance to issues of threats of violence, would have been useful. Now knowing that, I would have no qualms in following the specified direction.


Additional optional questions from Seivad
15. You have stated that you do not see yourself as a Class A composer of articles, but do you have any significant edits to articles, and are you particularly proud of any of these?
A: Ah, now don't confuse composer with creator. I am a researcher and supplier of information, excellent resources and skills to tap the resources, especially with the historical perspective. That I can demonstrate! I just am a boring old sausage when it comes to fancy words, I missed creative when the skills were handed out.<shrug> This is more about knowing one's strengths. My strength is evidence, bringing resources, being analytical.
16. Other than disambiguation repair, do you do any other MOP related activities on Wikipedia on a regular basis, such as RCP or New Page monitoring?

When I disambiguate, I also do a reasonable amount of tidy and maintenance at the same time. New page monitoring, no. RCP, yes, bits of wikification, again often as I disambiguate the mop comes out, depending what I am doing on the day. Lots of adding references. As mentioned, I am keen on working on transwiki issues, where they give value to both WP, WS and Commons and there seems a need for that.

Optional question from Keepscases
17. You are to be given a high-quality jacket with a snapshot of any Wikipedia article printed on the back, and you must wear this jacket every day for the next year. Which article do you pick, and why?
A:Initial thought was Black Saturday bushfires, and for personal reasons, though as that may be upsetting for others, then probably Devil facial tumour disease. We need a solution. :-/
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
18. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Sure. Honesty. Facts. Right to access to public information. Respect. Objectivity. Occasional helping hand.
Continue to provide them irrespective of whether I am an administrator or not.
A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
19. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?
A: For WP, this is it. WYSIWYG (and at so many levels). No games with me. I do have a bot on WS — SDrewthbot.
Questions from Rootology
20a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
A: Just this one Billinghurst. Probably a few IP edits around where I haven't been logged in, but not purposefully.
20b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?
A: Zilch.
20c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
A: I was asked this by Jayvdb (my proposer and who is ArbCom) and he got the same answer, no other accounts.
21. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?
A: As someone who has dealt with issues of public records in the public space for nigh on 20 years, I am accustomed to 100 year rule, so I am comfortable with WP's conservative approach, and that opinion of mine is available on the web. I firmly believe in an evidence-based approach, no rumour or innuendo. I am not a celebrity chaser, and I personally have no particular interest in the nitty gritty of a person's lawful private life. Firmly in this is an encyclopedia camp, not an alternate edition of Who magazine.
22. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
A: Beliefs, sure. Affiliations? Nothing political, professionally yes, every employee has an affiliation. Interests? Most definitely. Of what may be a concern to this group or to this process? Nothing springs to mind. I know about vested and conflicts of interest, and can guarantee that I know when to step aside. I have strong personal ethics, I work in a profession where it is required. If you have specific concerns, then happy to address them, not sure that I want to expose my life to complete public scrutiny. I do feel strongly about the community, and a community approach, and I think that is evident from my approach at WP/WS, and my history while on the web and in the above references to which Jayvdb directed.
23. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall?
A: I have no problems with being judged for my actions or inactions. I am okay with accountability and responsibility. That is how I have operated on WS. It is how I operate in life.
24. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?
A: A block is made on the basis of added content and actions, not due to an appointment or absence of it. Administration is about the tools to administer, not special privilege. If blocked users, have a means of redress, same applies for admins. Might I think longer/again/consult wider before doing it, yes.
25. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?
A:Strong long black (from the beans please), no sugar; I have given up the powdered stuff! Do we want to talk roasts? Source? Caffeine content? Fairtrade?
(Vested interest) Jayvdb does owe me several virtual beers for solving some long outstanding research problems for a couple of articles. Maybe one day ... ?!?
Optional Question from Ottawa4ever (talk)
26. A new user (IP editor with little editing history) comes to wikipedia and begins editing one specific article. The editor subsequently gets into an edit war with more experienced editors. How would you handle the IP editor if they were reported for 3RR assuming they did not recieve any warnings on their talk page? Would your answer be any different if the editor recieved warnings about 3RR on their talk page? thanks for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:There is a steep learning curve at wikis, not only the how-to, but also the wikiquette. What we want is to uphold the quality of the articles, and the temperament of the community. Two concurrent streams. 1) Newbies may take a little more time and effort (and deep breathing, eyerolls are extra), so you work with them to understand the purposes and processes. 2) Simultaneously evaluate the disruption caused, and utilise available tools and skills to manage the issue. Tool use should be as light as possible to manage the disruption. One has to classically risk manage, and use skills, knowledge, practice and culture. Carrots work better than sticks, though the sticks are still there. If all parties think that they won and got carrot, all the better.
Additional optional questions from User:Smallman12q
27. A user you blocked threatens that they'll commit suicide if he/she/it isn't unblocked immediately. What do you do? (This is to create a nongeneric answer=P)
A:[Having to create a case history as that would exist and be specific -- Presuming that this is a situation has been through a series of warnings, rather than a case of pure vandalism, and has levels of immediacy, and that the person is conversing specifically with the admin who blocked.] Enter a discussion with the user that you will work with them to help address their issues, and that you both need to work together to try and get a solution. That their general well-being is more important than any contribution to WP, or any decision made at WP, and that they should find a real person, someone that they trust, rather than a virtual person, with whom to discuss this issue. Plus, that unblocking alone is not the solution, as anyone of a thousand people may re-implement the block, and that is going to make resolution harder, and longer. That the issue is resolvable and surely that a solution will exist if communication takes place, and we work together. Still their priority should be the support of a person with whom they can discuss the issue, face to face.
Beside this process, is to ask another admin to review your decision-making process to review your handling and objectivity, and if/as necessary to take over the case to ensure a level of purity. If there is a level of adamancy, and an indication that you are not being listened to, then that support is called in earlier, rather than later. Due care. Due process. [It is more likely that such an expression from a person relates to issues that are broader than solely an issue in WP.]
Nominee's response to Oppose commentary
  • There is a comment that I lack the demonstrated experience for issue resolution. I cannot see that specific question above, hence hadn't specifically addressed it. Can I say that I heartily disagree with your presumption. As the listmaster for RootsWeb and the substantive manager of 30 000+ mailing lists, shepherding 2000+ list administrators, and the final point of call for 500 000 odd subscribers to mailing lists, that I have probably had my absolute fair share of issue resolution matters. All happy, well obviously no, was I respected? Considered fair and equitable? I would say that I was.
  • There is a hint that I ignore threats of violence and the mentally ill, umm, no. I have more experience with the mentally ill than I would wish on my worst enemy. Threats of violence? I would follow process set out and I am thankful for the pointer to the page. I would state that you have no evidence basis to make a judgment of my expertise, skills and knowledge in these areas, and unless you are professionals in that area, you should be mindful in expressing opinions. If you are following guidelines, I can follow as well as the next person. If you want a specific response to a specific example, then happy to respond directly. To a broad question, you will get a broad answer. Do I know all the answers to all the admin pols & procs, No. I do learn, I do not act hastily, I do not act precipitously, I take responsibilities and authority seriously, and readily willing to listen to feedback and other people's opinions.
  • Do I come here skiting my expertise? Look at me!? No. That is not how I operate. The role of a facilitator or arbitrator is not to be the focus, but the locus. If you are wanting someone who is the focus of attention, rather than someone who looks at solutions, then I am not a person that you want, and will happily withdraw from the nomination process. Do I have experience with solutions, yes, I do. If I am unsuccessful, that is okay, I will go back to other tasks. I was truly asked to be nominated, it was not sought. I had some reluctance due to the back-biting and politics that is exhibited, however, I was asked by Jayvdb and a person for whom I have high respect and he thought that I had a good skill set to offer. I will now crawl back under my rock and await your decision-making process. :-)

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support[edit]
  1. No reservations. None. Billinghurst isn't the most active candidate, but you couldn't ask for a more trustworthy and reliable one. Interactions on the English Wikisource lead me to believe he is a truly great Wikimedian. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support:Seems dedicated, trustworthy & civil. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Per above. Kablammo (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Contribs on WM projects show reason to trust. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. In my experience he is reliable and I have no concerns about him.--BirgitteSB 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per AnonDiss. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportCan see no reason not to. Dottydotdot (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You already voted, indenting.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Antivenin 18:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. User does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No reason not to! America69 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support – Trusted user, will not abuse the tools. American Eagle (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support As per Jayvdb and track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked and as I do not recall us ever having any memorable negative interactions (I tend to WP:AGF with those with whom I am not all that familiar with, but in any event, nothing overwhelming has jumped out at me upon reviewing this RfA). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, per Jayvdb's nomination. AGK 20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per answer to #11 and for being a good user. --PirateSmackKArrrr! 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks good to me. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - seems like a good contributor, who knows his stuff, with no problems in his history. No reason to oppose. Robofish (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I forgot this step. :-) Mr. Billinghurst has my complete confidence; I wouldn't nominate someone otherwise. He has learnt the ropes on Wikisource exceptionally fast, and I have full confidence that his maturity and experience in moderating online communities will be as much an asset to English Wikipedia as it has to English Wikisource. My only regret is that he will spend more time here. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I don't think I've come across this candidate before, but having checked amongst other things the candidates talk page, block log, recent deleted contributions as well as reading this page I'm happy for Billinghurst to take up the mop. 7,000 edits in varied areas, a clean block log, clue and civility IMHO outweigh a couple of the answers being weak, especially as the weaknesses are not in areas where the candidate intends to concentrate. I'm curious as to the motivation for some of the questions, one or two of which look almost like fishing to me, and I will revisit this RFA as it progresses to see how things develop. ϢereSpielChequers 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support meets my standards. already admin on wiki source. so far opposers have not presented anything for me to oppose over. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Has done well enough here on Wikipedia, and has experience elsewhere that should be good enough to ensure competence. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, no serious concerns for me. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Qualifies to be an Admin. Experience is very good too. Cheers!--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Looks to be a valued, if limited-purpose, admin, as he is already a valued editor. RayTalk 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support  Looked over contribs, editor would be a good admin, has performed similar functions in other online realms. --StaniStani  15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I see no reason why not, 6000+ contributions since 2007 is more than enough for me, maintenance work is excellent. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Seems good to me: he's been asked 25 questions, and hasn't done that bad a job of answering them. Only 7,000 edits since 2007...that's more than enough, and edit count doesn't translate to trustworthiness or suitability for adminship. GAs/FAs/DYKs are irrelevant if there is other article work to compensate for them. More than 90% of Billinghurst's edits are to articles, which shows dedication to article-building. Acalamari 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, seems reasonable, cautious and amenable to advice. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Reasoned and logical answers given, clean log, proved suitability elsewhere. To those who say that only 7,000 edits are not enough I would argue that numbers are deceptive (one could make 20,000 minor typo edits as opposed to 7,000 more substanstial edits - quality not quantity). Idem remark about number of contributions having no relation to administrative duties which require other skill sets. To those who say that his replies are vague in some areas, is it not preferable to have someone highly competent in some areas, as opposed to a "Jack of all trades, master of none"? User can grow in areas where he is less experienced.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good faith editor, should be great asset ⊕Assasin Joe talk 03:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support No reason to not trust him with the tools. rootology/equality 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Maturity. Self-knowledge. Communication skills. Steady improvement of existing articles, an area that is sorely lacking now. Ability to collaborate. A very fine candidate. Risker (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Appears (to me) to have proper level of WP:CLUE, and dedicated to the improvement of our site. I'd offer that Billinghurst is welcome to "dab" my reasoning. ;) — Ched :  ?  04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yes, please. Keegantalk 05:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support; if only more of our admins were like Billinghurst.

    But I see RFA is more broken than ever. Note for 'crat: those who actually know this guy support giving him the bit; the opposes are from people who don't know him, but think they can cover for their lack of actual interaction with a few arbitrary metrics and ten minutes snooping around. Hesperian 06:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  40. Support. He has his head screwed on the right way. Jude (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support — Completely trusted, will do work with the tools. They're called tools because they are to aid in the performance of work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Never met the guy but his answers and contributions look fine to me. To-the-point, dedicated, both feet firmly on the ground, plenty of clue. I have no reason to assume he'll mess things up or cause dramas. Yintaɳ  09:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Admin on sister project and able to communicate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Does the candidate know how to use the tools? Yes. Is there any evidence to suggest they would misuse the tools? No. Billinghurst has an obvious use and need for the tools, and has demonstrated an appropriate level of trust, so this is fine by me. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Candidate has proven themselves in another project that, though smaller, is very serious. After personally having fought vandalism over there before (a vandal bot and some smaller things), I've had experience with what kinds of problems happen and I feel Billinghurst as able to make the appropriate block choice for the circumstance. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good communication skills, mature attitude.Great candidate. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  47. SupportDemonstrated experience and skill are more than adequate. Answers to an extensive range of questions, some somewhat hostile, are good. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support — A good admin on Wikisource, why distrust him here? mynameincOttoman project Review me 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - SD5 16:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No major concerns here. You most certainly seem to be trustworthy and someone we could rely on as an administrator. None of the opposes seem to worry me enough to oppose you. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, opposes aren't convincing to me. Wizardman 19:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, mostly per Jayvdb's response to Oppose #14. Questions 13 & 14 are not a problem for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per above. Good luck! --t'shael mindmeld 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No issues here, clearly a trusted Wikimedian. GlassCobra 22:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I think the user will think through a problem rationally and come to good conclusion when the time comes to use or not use any tools. He has my full support at this time Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support. None of the concerns raised by anyone appear to be valid concerns to me. I see no evidence any of the tools would be abused, and plenty which shows they would be used to good effect and improve the project. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Would do well with the tools. Not worried about edit count - I just hit 6k. Law type! snype? 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - I've decided to support Billinghurst. He hasn't contributed any DYKs/GAs/FAs, but his other edits seems good. I also analyzed his edits on Wikisource, and they are pretty good. Success on other Wikimedia projects does not guarantee success here, but he has over 7k edits here on en.wikipedia. Two A++ Wikimedians, Anonymous Dissident and Jayvdb, are also supporting Billinghurst. This has also slightly influenced my !vote. AdjustShift (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - If he had no other experience on other WM projects, I might have some concerns. However, he does have that experience plus the experience mentioned in "Nominee's response to Oppose commentary". I think he'll do just fine. --Richard (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Per Jayvdb, AnonymousDissident and many other users I respect. Also, have seen B in action on WS, liked what I saw. Also, I find David Fuchs' arguments singularly uncompelling. With all due respect, adminship should not be something granted based on recipe, so many edits of type A, so many of type B, so many of type C, so much time spent on board X, so much on board Y, and so much on board Zed. Rather, the question should be, is it likely the candidate will be a good admin? The answer is yes; WS is not en:wp but success at WS (which has, as noted, 4 stewards and many en:wp admins among the WS admins, and which had me as well until I stepped down) is highly indicative of success here. Strong support ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support per many of the other support reasons that I read. It could use repeating but it's late at night here. The candidate's answers resonate with me as an administrator on other projects, and he seems to have his head about him. The fact that AnonDiss and Jayvdb are supporting this simply helps me in being pretty sure that this is an RfA that I want to support. Again, this is one of those places where I keep feeling like we don't need for admins to have contributed DYKs or whatever the else wikipedia content thingies that there are. Judge editors for what they do, and Billinghurst does what he does do very well. --Neskaya kanetsv? 08:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Has a clue. Experience on other wikis is very relevant: the culture and procedures vary from wiki to wiki but that's easy to adjust to. If you can use the tools responsibly on wikisource, you can do the same here. It's not rocket science. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to respond to each oppose separately, but I want to point out general weaknesses in some of the arguments.While it is true that Billinghurst doesn't have that much content building credentials, he does have extensive gnome-work experience. Disambiguating is a pretty thankless task but it's important and it does require a bit of care. In the process, Billinghurst has often posted notices on article talk pages to point out problems such as date discrepancies. It's not as glamorous as writing FAs but it shows an understanding of how content progresses through collaboration. In the same spirit, identifying content which could/should be moved to WikiSource is content building. Finally, while it is informative to see how a candidate handled conflict, I find it more important to see a candidate who knows how to collaborate with others. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support Questions answered thoughtfully and reasonably, I especially liked answer 24a, Admin are human and as long as he remembers this (this doesn't mean all admin are baby eating fiends, on the contrary it just helps make the person approachable!) I think he will be a very fine Admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Having had the pleasure of working alongside this user at Wikisource, I firmly believe they will be able to use the tools at en.wiki as competently as they have at wikisource. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support A trustworthy user. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - technically meets my standards, and I have no serious concerns. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support  Frank  |  talk  21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I like his answers to the questions. Renaissancee (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak Support, Seems like a good canidate, has extensive experience elsewhere, no reason to suspect tool abuse, my only concern is that answers to questions are not great, but they are acceptable. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I see no reason not to. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: WTHN ? -- Tinu Cherian - 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: Good answers. Suitably considered and collegiate. William Avery (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - I see no problem here. Deb (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support-The answers to the questions are not unique, but there's nothing wrong with a generic admin.Smallman12q (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - seems a well balanced user who is unlikely to abuse tools or engage in drama. Good candidate.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support sufficient work with articles and with process to show suitability as an admin. One needs to know about how to write articles to be an admin, one does not need to frequently create new ones. In fact, the more active one is as an admin, the less chance one is likely to have to do so. DGG (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I am not entirely without worry here, and I can't say that some of the answers to the questions don't leave me unsatisfied (or at least not wholly satisfied), but the whole of the record permits me to conclude with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: Per response to questions 13 and 14. I would expect any administrator to take some kind of action, even if if it was a quick post on ANI about a threat of violence. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, to do what? To request a checkuser and call the police that IP X is about to commit suicide? I think there is little to nothing we can do in these cases - except reverting it as vandalism. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to have that debate. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further reflection, the answers are very generic and show no ability to make a call in a grey area. Re-assert previously retracted Oppose.Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lack of audited content contributions, no observed conflict resolution experience, no meaningful noticeboard activities, little AfD participation, very generic answers to questions 1-3. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here - DougsTech (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose Most edits are from AWB and needs more work in collaborative areas. -download ׀ sign! 01:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, only 1,500 of his 7,000 were generated with AWB. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose per David Fuchs. Experience gained on other wikis does not automatically guarantee success here. --John (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose per David Fuchs. Timmeh!(review me) 01:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose Per David Fuchs.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 02:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Don't like the answer to #13 and #14. User might be a great admin on other websites, but supplemental answer to #14 shows they are not ready here yet. No evidence of how they would handle under difficult circumstances, does not have my trust. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose - I'm not very impressed by the answers to the questions. I may change my !vote if they are elaborated on more. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, rather generic answers to the templated questions. Nakon 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - question #7 concerns me. Admins have all of the admin buttons, so it would be a good idea to find out about the block button at some point. --B (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since obtaining sysop on English Wikisource, by my quick count Billinghurst has done 45% (79/176) of the block actions there.[3] I don't use the block button here on English Wikipedia very often; neither has BirgitteSB[4]. However we are capable of blocking, even if that isn't the glove we wear here on English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - basically per David Fuchs. More article work is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Switched to support. AdjustShift (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - only 6,000 edits to article mainspace since 2007; more article work needed. ColdmachineTalk 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there goes my bit. And I'm Spartacus!'s, Newyorkbrad's, Moni3's (!), and half of all other admins'. Amalthea 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but he only has 7,000 edits in total... –Juliancolton | Talk 05:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please clarify:
    1. Why you feel a candidate's experience writing articles is relevant to this discussion of whether he would use the administrative tools?
    2. Notwithstanding #1, how much experience you would feel is needed in the area, given that a large proportion of administrators did not have that level of experience on promotion, and many still don't?
    Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Article experience is important because that is where the highest likelihood of conflict exists. If you have not been involved in a heated content dispute, you haven't shown the ability to remain cool in the midst of one. That said, 6000 edits in article mainspace ought to be enough as long as they are real content edits rather than bot-assisted gnomish edits. --Richard (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The clarification from Richard hit the nail on the head. Amalthea: the concept of a comparison with other admin edit counts is irrelevant since I did not participate in the RfAs for those individuals - had I done then I might have raised the same (valid) concern but we are here to discuss this RfA, not past nominations. ColdmachineTalk 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Agreed, needs more cowbell article work. Also seems to be a bit trigger happy with the block baton.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare with my own block log there[5] Wikisource tries to maintain the atmosphere of a library, and much of the work at Wikisource depends on library science experience, which means we are more willing to forcibly remove trouble makers post-haste, with only the block log to inform they why they are not welcome. The reason is simply that vandals who find Wikisource have usually already been blocked from Wikipedia, so reform is extremely unlikely. Also, Wikisource contributions dont require a lot of collaboration - the text must be true to the original, so there is less to discuss, and exceedingly few reasons to alter a page, except to nudge it closer to the original. However we do allow collaborative translations, and this is one area where a broader spectrum of contributors is desirable. And this provides one example of Mr Billinghurst demonstrating a more "Wikipedia-like" approach to blocking. Please see this (and the section that follows) and note that his block there[6] was shorter than his block here[7] He can make quick choices when required, but most importantly he understands when quick reactions are not helpful. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I remain unconvinced. The peaceful venues of Wikisource are not the mean streets of Wikipedia. Just because you believe he is a good admin there does not mean he would make a good one here. The last thing we need here is another block-happy cop, who could well end up before you at the ARBCOM. In which case, as his nominator/patron, I trust you would recuse yourself.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not trigger happy, as demonstrated by the second half of my previous response.
    His objective here is not to be an enforcer of any sort. He intends to be a janitor, and use the tools to clear the backlog at Category:Copy to Wikisource. See s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Transwiki_Bot_Request for more details.
    I will recuse on any matter where a Wikisource admin is a party. See User:Jayvdb/recusal. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here to dispute your opinion, that is your entitlement. At the same time, there is an evidence-base as a WS admin, and my exhibited behaviour at WP that says I don't cause a ruckus. My aim is the administrative tasks, and they had to twist my arm to demonstrate that I could work more efficiently with the tools.
    With respect to ARBCOM, amen, and I doubt that it ever will. I believe those that know me have supported me for that exact reason. Anyway, I respect your decision. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it looks like you will succeed despite my opinions. Congrats! But I hope you will take some of the objections raised here to heart. Good luck...you'll need it:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely. I practice reflection and I do hasten slowly. billinghurst (talk)
  14. Not yet. Grounds: 1) Little evidence of participation in contentious areas such as AfD or dispute resolution, so I can't satisfy myself this candidate would consistently act in an appropriate way in a contentious situation; 2) I found the answers to the questions not just generic, but actually evasive; 3) I think that anyone who can't think of a single edit they'd like to make to a Wikipedia policy, hasn't spent enough time thinking about policy to be an admin.

    I'll happily reconsider at any future RFA.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  15. Oppose - per -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. NoCal100 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. This candidate's lack of experience in the en:Wikipedia administrative arena portends a very rough beginning if given the tools at this time. — Athaenara ✉ 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. per content issues. Peter Damian (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on what content issues are of concern to you? ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Lack of experience, minimal content contributions, and tenor of answers didn't inspire my confidence. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Echoing Mr. Fuchs up there, sorry.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
#Neutral: Per revision to answers to questions #13 and 14 (was previously oppose). Toddst1 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#Neutral, Q #13 and #14 worry me slightly, waiting on answers to new questions. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I'm not impressed by the answers given to questions, but not enough to oppose. One two three... 05:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, basically per One — ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Can't make up my mind. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral – I'm split down the middle between supporting and opposing. The big pro is that you have extensive admin experience elsewhere. However, the cons do include the answers in some of the questions, (I will admit, however, that IS a LOT of questions that were fired at you.) and the lack needed experience in these admin-related fields such as AIV, UAA, or XFD. Even though admin roles are more or less transparent across other project surely en.wiki is their own little rules and procedures that might be different from other projects. MuZemike 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understand completely, and if I were to venture into those areas, then I would get the appropriate experience before undertaking the more complex tasks. At this moment, my priority is not in that area, where there seems to be sufficient contributors. I also understand the need for more probing questions for those who wish to see demonstrated gladatorial experience in that ampitheatre, especially when it is dear to their hearts. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Billinghurst&oldid=1222164669"