Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for checkuser/Billinghurst

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

Billinghurst

edit

Hello all!

I'd like to present Billinghurst as possible new checkuser on meta to our community. I've talked to some of my fellows and we agreed that another checkuser here on meta would surely be a good idea. I think that Andrew actually would fit very well in our current team of checkusers. He's been an active admin here on meta for quite some time now and has also quite a lot experience as checkuser on the English Wikisource. Meta recently became the victim of spam and Andrew helped quite a bit fighting the spam, not only locally here but also globally. A local checkuser flag on meta will surely help him and us all to fight the spammers more effectively. I hope that you agree with me here and give him your support. Good luck! -Barras talk 09:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the generous words. If I can be of help and my skill set suits the team, I am more than happy to accept the nomination. billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. -Barras talk 09:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I too support giving this experienced and trustworthy user the checkuser flag. Snowolf How can I help? 09:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Has my full confidence and support. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. --Philippe (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sure. Jafeluv (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We could use one more active Meta-Wiki CheckUser who frequently uses IRC. Trijnstel (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I agree with DerHexer below. Trijnstel (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support As I said in the steward elections one of the few people who has my trust and is a highly effective worker. --Herby talk thyme 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with Trijnstel. Mathonius (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hardworker. --Mercy (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, although a bit surprising that immediately after having become a steward. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No problems for me. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. sure --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. While I still think that stewards should be able to use their checkuser bit whenever they need to on Meta, I have no problems supporting any of them for local CU here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Of course. Courcelles (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support - knows what he is doing. The Helpful One 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support I share DerHexer's opinion, but surely you fulfill all requirements for this right. --FalconL ?! 18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support Ruy Pugliesi◥ 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sad to recognize we're under pressing need to have new one. Happy to see we have so a good candidate. Thanks for volunteering, Andrew :) --Aphaia (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support Per Herby and Ajraddatz. --WizardOfOz talk 22:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support MBisanz talk 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support per Aphaia Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support Yes. –BruTe talk 07:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support.” Teles (T @ L C S) 07:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Already a CU in another project, quite active in meta... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support trusted, active mickit 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support Matanya (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Stellar user: happy to Support Support. AGK [•] 22:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Érico Júnior Wouters (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oh Good Lord yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support Americophile 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support Pete F (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Sure --Katarighe (Talk) 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Oppose - clear abuse of CU tools on Wikisource when allowing Poetlister to sock on multiple accounts and run for adminship. It is a shame to see so many people above know that Billinghurst outright aided Poetlister, one of the most offensive, worst people to ever be connected to a WMF project, yet haven't banned Billinghurst. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OR you are clearly still unable to let facts get in the way of your fiction. You have just now created an accusation of abuse of checkuser tools, there has not been that accusation, and it is patently false. You have repeatedly brought up varying accusations on the Poetlister matter at multiple forums, and they have been dismissed at each occasion. billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This and this provide overwhelming evidence that the Wikisource CUs, including you, supported Poetlister's socking. Your response to being given evidence of Poetlister's massive socking and harassing on Wikisource was to say "We don't have to jump just because of your umbrage issue of the day", which is 100% the wrong attitude and merely a cover for your own lack of doing the right thing in preventing his socking. Instead, you aided him by allowing him to continue for 6 months. The facts can't be challenged, but your statement above is outright incivil and should be blockable. You are a grave threat to every single project because you have aided the worst possible person in outright awful actions. Those like FloNight and Charles Matthews were able to see how horrible the actions were, even if you were able to get your friends to defend you there. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And the CU email list is part of the CU's tools. CU are not allowed to allow a person to have 4 accounts while harassing others on 3 and run for admin on the 4th. That is abuse of the CU status. You cannot construe that as any other action but abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Billinghurst, your first statement about the Poetlister socking was to say "Yes, we had decisions to make, and options to consider, that is what we elected to do. Were all our decisions correct, obviously not." You can't say that you didn't fail as a C now when you admitted you majorly failed last time. Trying to rewrite history is further proof that you are not fit to be here. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support and strongly--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support. Savhñ 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support per Fastily. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnbelievableError (talk)
  38. Support Support -- But with the Steward tools you have at this time the checkuser has exceeded the usual tools here. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as successful - Very clear result, my vote/nom notwithstanding. -Barras talk 10:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_checkuser/Billinghurst&oldid=22557329"