Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship/Billinghurst

< Meta:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Billinghurst edit

Billinghurst (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 12 November 2011 05:42 UTC

Gday, a self-nom for admin on Meta. I am an admin at enWP, enWS, Commons, and also a Checkuser at English Wikisource. Looking to get admin rights for Meta mainly so I can undertake additions to the global blacklist, rather than nag someone else to do it for me, especially where we have identified spam at English Wikisource. I don't believe that I am problematic, nor out to make a fuss, nor do I come with any agenda beyond trying to do my bit to make things better across WMF. I occasionally participate in broader forums, and bugzilla, however, generally I am just one of those tucked away in the corner or in a cupboard who is ready with a mop. billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: You mentioned the global blacklist. How would you be involved? What items would you need to add or remove? Normally, global blacklist is connected to people who work with cross-wiki matters, especially the Small Wiki Task Force. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Spam urls are spam urls, wherever they are applied. Often we find that at the English sites, and somewhat similarly in the Wikisource sites that the spam urls are added to local blacklists and I know that I do it myself. I also know the details that I provide to Stewards, and through CU fora, so rather than me adding such to local lists, or adding it to someone else's TO DO list, I see that it is beneficial doing it globally where it is just spam. Can I also add, that SWTF is a specific sub-community, and there are other significant sharing sub-communities that do their work aside from [[:meta:]], though the global design/response and the keys like blacklist are held here. billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - based on past experience, Billinghurst is trustworthy. I don't know how useful he will be regarding the blacklist, but I can trust him with admin ops here. It is always good to have another experienced and trustworthy admin from other Wikis able to take care of things here. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: At 19:38 on 3 November Ottava Rima removed a post from another editor's user talk, giving the reason "continuing content dispute on Meta without a legitimate reason". It is not an editor's job to control the content of another editor's talk page, especially when that editor is a member of the Arbitration Committee. At 14:47 on 4 November, in a post to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat Ottava Rima amplified his reasoning, claiming that the editor was being "harassed" by "a sock puppet" trying to push "nonsense article claims". The post which was objected to contained facts which were fully sourced. Ottava Rima requested a block and at 15:14 Vituzzu obliged, without having conducted any kind of investigation into the merits of his claims. At 10:44 yesterday Vituzzu removed a post made by a user in that user's own user space without giving a reason. Again, it is not an administrator's job to control what a user puts in her own user space without giving a reason. As an administrator, how would you have handled Ottava Rima's request and would you, without giving any reason, revert posts made by editors in their own user space? 212.85.1.2 11:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that I would have done anything with OR's post, though there is a history and we generally tread separate paths. To the second part of the question, I would agree that I don't see that a user's talk page is usually a place for an administrator to undertake tasks. If you are asking about my normal practice, it is not to be reverting edits on user talk pages. This specific case? I don't have sufficient knowledge to form an opinion. billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an FYI. The above sock master is misleading you billinghurst. He has used over a half dozen IPs so far on multiple Wikis in multiple wikis and a long list of sock puppets. Risker was one of the people who blocked him for socking. The user posted statements on her talk page, she removed them, and he continued on multiple IPs. This was removed, he reinserted, and he was dealt with. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have never posted on any wiki other than En: or Meta. I won't be wasting my breath continuing this discussion. 212.85.1.2 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One is only misled if one follows. Otherwise I am not sure how this argument benefits the wiki by continuing here. billinghurst sDrewth 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 11:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Of course. More competent hands on the SBL would always be appreciated. Courcelles 18:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Concerned with lack of activity on meta, but he is competant with the SBL and we could always use more volunteers with that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, per Savh and Ajraddatz.” Teles (T @ L C S) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Trusted and active user, knows what he's doing, meets the requirements. Jafeluv 14:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I have no trust issues here. My issue is that WikiMeta has an active thriving community, processes that drastically differ from other projects. As such, meta admin must know the wiki well and know its problems. Moral support but a no from me fr33kman 18:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what is so drastically different here that wouldn't be understood by an experienced and trusted administrator elsewhere? PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    People like myself, for one. But less glib - inclusion standards would be something good for a prospective admin to know. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This caught my eye. If things are so unique here that a highly experienced Wikimedian like Billinghurst might easily slip up, and we aim to be an open movement, that seems to invite an important task: maybe it would be good to document some of the unusual things in a way that facilitates someone like B. getting up to speed? But, at the same time -- I did not have a great deal of Meta experience when I became admin, and I feel I've been able to participate productively. B has indicated clearly the area in which he intends to work; can't he be trusted not to go bumbling about in areas like deletion debates etc. without first educating himself on inclusion standards? I'm interested in comments on this, but of course, it may be broader than B.'s candidacy. Feel free to answer on my talk page, or point me to a better forum. -Pete F 20:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just an opinion. I know very well who the candidate is and it has nothing to do with him; I just think that admin candidates should be active on meta. Could I become an admin on enwiki just because I dislike tagging articles for deletion, or seeing vandals that I can't do anything about because I'm not an admin there? Billinghurst hasn't been very active on meta and that's the sole reason I have opposed. Of course he knows what he's doing. :) fr33kman 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fr33kman does make pertinent points, and I am not overly wanting to come in here and be the most active admin, nor here to get into even more politics. If that is what WMFians want, then please oppose this request, as that is neither my wish nor desire, providing content is more rewarding. That said, this design is part of the issue in that Meta is a central and controlling repository. If someone wants to contribute to a specific part, you are now saying that one has to be playing meta politics. If there was the ability to just grant access to a small group of files, that would have been my request, however, that ability doesn't exist. If there was the ability to just apply and to manage this at a broader Wikisource level that too would have been fantastic, however, we are a broader and proud community where we try to provide our local learnings for the benefit of all. :-) billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I say you had to "play meta politics"? fr33kman 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support: I'm of the opinion that any trusted user can be a competent sysop here, and the scope for any abuse/misuse is non-existant in the right hands. Billinghurst clearly has experience and trust, so I don't see any problem here. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support An excellent contributor in every situation I have encountered him. He should be allowed tools if he deems he as a use for them. Thenub314 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sorry but i don't see a need of tools. Email Vaibhav Talk 10:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Closed as succesful --WizardOfOz talk 09:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Billinghurst&oldid=3069848"