Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Billy

Final (7/27/10); Originally scheduled to end 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC). Withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Billy (talk · contribs) - I am a very responsible, trustworthy user who would make a great administrator. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies, as well as being an active anti-vandal editor.My edits are very good quality, and I have a perfect edit count usage. Billy-talk 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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 plan to continue my anti vandal work, as well as assisting in AIV and making regular edits. I also plan to assist in improving protected templates, such as several of the cleanup templates, etc.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say that my best quality edits are my edits to the article Ben Bulben. I created this article, and have since maintained it. Also, my anti-vandal work, which goes into the thousands of reverts, is very good. Also, I have reported dozens of users to AIV and UAA.
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: Several times, after reverting vandal's edits, my user page was vandalized. In one case, the person vandalized my page no fewer than five times. My response was to first warn the user, then reporting him to AIV after he ignored my warnings.
4. How do you to orient on license in english wikipedia? Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
A: License is very important on Wikipedia. I believe that licensing is very crucial to this website's success.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billy227
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Billy

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Hi Billy, I suggest you withdraw this and perhaps come back with a little more experience, and perhaps higher activity. I don't think you'll pass now, and it may be better to end this now. Thanks. Redrocketboy 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain me having editcountitis? I don't see why I do. -Billy-talk 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, no, no; you don't have editcountitis. :) Editcountitis is something used to describe people who base their supports/opposes/neutrals based on edit count alone. Acalamari 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Then why I am being accused of having it. Also, I already knew what it meant. Thanks! -69.159.230.60 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No one is accusing you of having it; some people are referring to your opposition, not you. Acalamari 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
I feel that the user at least deserves a chance. There are no red flags that say to oppose. Dustihowe (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Move vote to oppose. Didn't catch that the user was in school. Dustihowe (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support No good reason to oppose other than editcountitis. Adminship is a mop and bucket, not a high honor. - Chardish (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Currently, there are seven opposing !votes, none of which touch on editcountitis; experience is the issue for most, not edit count. You are 100% spot-on with adminship not being an honor, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just a minor point: Oppose vote #2 mentions edit count quite a bit. Redrocketboy 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I don't see any reason to "strong oppose" this candidate. Acalamari 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    No reason not to. SQLQuery me! 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Moving to neutral SQLQuery me! 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support - I think you need some more experience in the different areas of Wikipedia and I would be glad to help and show you around. Give WP:ADMIN a glance over for starters. You deserve the support, friend. :-) ScarianTalk 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, to avoid a nasty pile - on. Please do come back sometime though, thanks, Redrocketboy 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. People who are bold get my support. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I think you would make a good admin, although this will probably fail solely because we can't see clear and absolute evidence of that... however, you have the right attitude. Don't be discouraged, and try again in a few months when you have had the chance to prove yourself to the community. To avoid spurious oppose votes based on activity, perhaps applying when you are less busy is a good way to go. Orderinchaos 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support-Apply again in a few months. Show some understanding of policy and you've got this next time 'round. Don't be discouraged. You've earned the community's respect with your edits. You'll earn the community's trust with time. Lara❤Love 06:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. Unimpressive answers to questions, fair use images on userspace [1] - see WP:NFCC, and this was only a little over 1 month ago. Qst 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Also, I see a lack of maturity. Qst 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Perhaps he was just having a little fun :-) ScarianTalk 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Wrong, the image of the former president was fair use, thus making it not appropriate for userspace, it was a clear copyright violation, something which admin candidates should know better than. Qst 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Picture of the former president? Check your link buddy. All I see is a shutoff button? ScarianTalk 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, that image was of John Lennon. -198.96.80.15 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose Forgive the slight editcountitis, but I don't think you've got enough edits to show that you've garnered enough experience around here. Also, the vast majority of your activity was over the summer; you've barely had over 50 edits in a month since then. GlassCobra 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose I've been thinking about this quite a lot. I want to apologize for the Strong Oppose off the bat; that was definitely unnecessary, given the good faith of the editor. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Useight that any time that can be given to the project is good; however, my concerns with overall lack of experience remain. The answers to the questions are also rather short and unsatisfactory. Further, with only 122 edits to project space, I don't think you have quite enough activity in admin-related areas. GlassCobra 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I go to school, so most of my edits occurred in summer. But I am very busy with school, so can not edit so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but we need our administrators to be more active than that. GlassCobra 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    No, we do not. Our administrators can be active as they please, as long as they keep the community's trust. —Kurykh 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, but I prefer to see RfA candidates with a lot more activity than you show. I understand that you're busy with school, but a single burst of activity several months ago does not establish (in my mind) that you either have a need for the tools or that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I do applaud your priorities, however; school is more important than Wikipeda. If you still wish to become an administrator, I suggest you try finding a new balance between the two that incorporates a higher level of activity without causing your grades to suffer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - As per all of above. Insufficient answers to questions. — Rudget speak.work 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose You're on the right track, but you need to be more active and to have more experience. I can see why your answers would be short, as you haven't had much to talk about yet. Epbr123 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I cannot support RfAs in which the user requesting adminship admits to not being active, also, user does not have enough experience. Jack?! 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not quite there yet. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not active enough, don't see him as needing the tools. --Strothra (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per inactivity, FU images in userspace, and all above. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose fewer than 80 edits between July and November. For what its worth, this may be of interest. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    That's fewer than 80 per month, not total. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Per Sasha Callahan. RuneWiki777 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. I associate myself with EVula's remarks above. Wikipedia can be a swiftly changing place and the ability to stay abreast of changes is important. While I appreciate your eagerness I'd rather you wait until your real-life slows a bit and you can be more experienced with the ways things work here. The alternative is for your grades to suffer or for you to find yourself in a major conflict unnecessarily. -JodyB talk 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Miranda 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hello, Miranda is there a reason for your vote? Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Opposes without a reason is not constructive. You must provide a reason why you are opposing so that the candidate would know why he/she is being opposed. NHRHS2010 talk 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    There is no must. Users may oppose without detailing their reason (They may have even told the user going through the RfA beforehand and may not want to broadcast it here) on the RfA page. ScarianTalk 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    I oppose because this user is not ready? Is that okay, NHRHS2010? Miranda 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    That is better, and I remember in the past when I opposed a user without a reason and EVula said that the opposes without a reason was unhelpful. NHRHS2010 talk 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose not active enough, must be active and experienced in order for me to support you. NHRHS2010 talk 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Not active enough. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Just not active enough, and lacking in overall experience. Jmlk17 04:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose General uneasiness over prior account history, Imbilly (talk · contribs), appears when that account was blocked for vandalism you then continued the vandalism with the IP 69.159.230.60 (talk · contribs)(reference the IP as it is used above.) Dureo (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Is that a good reason to oppose? Perhaps he might want that power for good reasons. If he put in a RFA he would have put it in because he thought he can be helpful to the project. Marlith T/C 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    That's Kurt's standard answer for all self-noms. It's a tradition. Just leave it. Lara❤Love 06:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Lacks experience. — OcatecirT 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Sorrowful Oppose I am sorry that I first voted for support. For some reason, I did not catch that you were in school. I feel that any admin planning on doing work with Wikipedia should have a good amount of time to be able to patrol and do their "thing". You should focus on school right now and come back to re-run for adminship when you have more time on your hands. Sorry! Dustihowe (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose All of the above. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Not there yet, try again later with more experience. And many of the other reasons already listed above. --Djsasso (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose- sorry, I think your heart's in the right place but you will need to show a stronger editing track record & better understanding of policy. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose due to inactivity, unimpressive answers and your unconscious biases opening this nom: "I am a very responsible, trustworthy user who would make a great administrator." Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose School.--Improfane (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose and recommend withdrawal, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose I view editing as prima facie evidence of insanity. Nick (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral His work is good, I can't deny him that. I would definitely like to see more activity, but I can't oppose an editor just because they don't have a lot of time to dedicate to the project, even if he only has 10 minutes a week to spend on Wikipedia, that's 10 minutes of benefits. Useight (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I agree with you, but don't you feel that as a studnet in school, they should focus more time on their schoolwork than contributing to Wikipedia. Adminship is a huge responsibility that takes time. I rarely oppose on adminship but I feel that school comes first. Dustihowe (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Yes, definitely. I'm also a student and think that one should prioritize school before Wikipedia. I'm just saying that adding a few contributions to Wikipedia is better than none at all. I can't support, because he's not active enough, but I can't oppose, because he does a good job with the little time that he has. That's why I'm neutral on this one. Useight (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Come back with 500 Projectspace edits and I'll support fully. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Some more editing experience is required. Keep up the good work! Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I am with Useight on this one. I feel I can trust this user, but the questions are weak and as has been repeated, more activity would be welcome. However, if given the tools, I think Billy would use them for furthering the project. SorryGuy 05:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral; it's just too early, Billy. Come back with a few more months behind the belt and a track record still this solid and you'll get pile-on supports instead.  :-) — Coren (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral with strong moral support. Billy seems to be a fine Wikipedian, and I see no red flags. I don't like repeated selfnoms, but I wouldn't oppose because of that. However, his relative inactivity and poor answers to questions stops me from supporting at this time. While it's true that adminship is no big deal, it does carry some responsibilities that I'm not convinced Billy is fully aware of. Become more active, bone up on exactly what being an admin entails and diversify your contributions and I'd be glad to support. I'd recommend waiting for someone else to nominate you next time; that way you'll be sure that you have gained the trust and experience that we look for and you won't have to worry about being viewed as over-eager to get the tools. Good luck! :) faithless (speak) 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, with moral support. Per sockpuppetry concens raised above. SQLQuery me! 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I'm avoiding to pile on the opposes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I would support you, Billy, but as he said above he has very little time to contribute to Wikipedia as school is very busy for him at the moment, I can see you have done some very good things in the past, and some other, less noteworthy things. I hope you come back to request adminship when school is less hectic for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klownox (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. You have limited time to edit, and that's all good - I have two kids, I know the feeling. I highly encourage you not to waste what little editing time you have on tedious admin duties. Your contributions are good, and we value them - keep'em coming. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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.