Wikisource

Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Billinghurst

< Wikisource:Administrators‎ | Archives
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Billinghurst.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Billinghurst

2009-01 admin

Billinghurst (talk • contribs) SUL - SQL

I keep seeing this editor making valuable contributions to Wikisource. Recently they have been making more edits to JVbot patrol whitelist then John. Billinghurst has been a contributor to WS since July 2008 with a steady edit history and increasing taking responsibility for higher level participation in the project to include requests for speedy delete and page moves as in this recent edit. I believe granting the tools to this editor would benefit their ability to contribute to the project. I believe this editor has an edit history that shows they are and will continue to be a trusted member of the community. Please join me in supporting Billinghurst as a candidate to Adminship. Jeepday (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept the nomination (which I note is the convention), and thank those who have that confidence in me. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Appointed per consensus--BirgitteSB 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-09 checkuser

Preconditions


I would like to propose myself to become a third CheckUser for English Wikisource. I meet the Meta criteria expressed and am willing to identify myself to WMF. I have read and understand the existing policies at Meta and enWS, and agree to abide by the policies. I have no experience on a wiki as a checkuser, though I offer my time at RootsWeb as postmaster and listmaster as an example to demonstrate my skills and knowledge of IP addresses, IP address ranges, and rDNS. I hasten slowly in my admin approach, and would continue to be cautious, consultative, and patient. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. Support. If we need another Checkuser, then it might as well be Billinghurst. Hesperian 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support. I believe technical qualifications aren't the key point, since the network material is something others with the tools pass on. No reservations about the "invisibles". Charles Matthews (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support. He is a wise and trusted admin and I am sure he will make a wise and trusted check user this is why I support him. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support. Yes please. We do need another CU here, as I no longer notice problems and even miss requests on WS:AN. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support. Active and trustworthy admin. Yann (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support. Valued user to the project and should do fine with this added responsibility as well. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support. --Eliyak T*C 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support; trustworthy and experienced. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support. A trust-worthy and dedicated user whose use of the tools will be a boon to the community. Jude (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support Trusted. My account is new, but it was created on January 2009 here. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support -- A fine idea; someone willing to do moar work ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. support - Our current shortage is not a good thing, he seems trustworthy. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support - Easy decision. This should be closed and forwarded to the Stewards. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Comment I believe that we need a minimum of 25 votes to take to stewards. While I wondered whether there could be awareness made to the community, I didn't think that I was the one who should take such an action. billinghurst (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support.--Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support. ResScholar (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support 203.49.255.20 00:22, 3 September 2009 Oops, I forgot to sign in. Moondyne (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support. No concerns. Suicidalhamster (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support. --BirgitteSB 11:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support. He's a fine user, and he'll help cover the times John Vandenberg or I are away. --Pathoschild 23:46:54, 08 September 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support. Trusted user. --Shanel (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support. user is trusted and hopefully would be great CU on enwikisource , best of luck Mardetanha (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  24. Per the support of a number of other users I trust including more than one fellow CU and more than one fellow steward. Please take things slowly and ask for help if you need it. Most important: please remember that   Checkuser is NOT magic pixie dust   and you will do fine. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support I have interacted with the user several times although not here, and he will do just fine at this. --Neskaya (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support - very experienced user. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Pathoschild 20:07:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2010-02 confirmation

Administrator since January 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

Confirmed--BirgitteSB 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

2011-03 confirmation

Administrator since January 2009, Checkuser since September 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

Support—Kathleen.wright5 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

confirmed Billinghurst (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2012-04 confirmation

Administrator since January 2009, checkuser since September 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.


Confirmed. Hesperian 00:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

2013-05 confirmation

Administrator since January 2009, checkuser since September 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

To note that in April 2013, I removed a block placed by another administration without consulting them. At that time, I notified the administrator community explained what I had done and why, and stated that I would raise this at my confirmation. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. MODCHK (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Always! —Maury (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --Mpaa (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wheel warring is a serious matter, you where correct to bring it up at your confirmation. When admins use their tools to undo the actions of another admin it is the worst kind of edit warring, the potential harm to the community is significant. Your removal of the block was is strongly discouraged by our policy, additionally you did not make an attempt to contact the blocking admin to reverse their own block as it encouraged by the same policy, nor did you "notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at Administrators' noticeboard that you are unblocking a blocked user, before doing so". Having watched and participated in the ongoing discussion of the issue bringing about the events, I see no evidence that unblock was emotionally motivated, nor did I see evidence of ongoing conflict between you and the blocking admin after the unblock. Subsequent conversations and actions support that your action was ultimately correct and reflected the consensus of the community. Keeping in mind that the blocking admin, also believed that s/he had or would have the supported consensus of the community, this was strong potential for undue conflict to result. In this case there were significant considerations and a history of a nearly identical case. While I don’t support the order of your actions (unblock > Notify), nor do I believe the unblock need to occur in an immediate time frame (the block user did not appear to be currently attempting to edit). The correct action would have post the intent to unblock within a specific time frame (i.e. 5 minutes), and then unblock if there was no response. While ultimately the correct action, your execution had room for improvement, you wisely did not engage in other aggravating actions, which shows extremely good judgement and presents as a non-warring activity. Conditional support, please don’t do it again. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Jeepday, although you come to right conclusion at the end more or less, this was not wheel warring and should not be titled as such. While the term is not defined on Wikisource that I'm aware of, it's the undoing of an administrator revert: WP:Wheel, that is an admin reverting an admin who reverted them. Therefore, had ResScholar re-blocked, that would be wheel warring, not Billinghurst's unblock. Moreover, unblocking was done for the good of the community and this was not ResScholar's first screw up in this regard. Sometimes we are too averse to conflict on this project to do what is best for the community. Billinghurst did the right thing and saying that he has participated in "the worst kind of edit warring" is not just insulting, it's simply wrong.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Doug is correct that WP:Wheel defines it as reverting a revert, we don’t use the term and our expectations are slightly different. I respect Billinghurst and nothing here has changed that. Billinghurst did knowingly violate the notification expectation, and knew that doing so was the first step into what could have resulted in wheel war, Had he followed our our policy, it would have started a community consensus to revert the block. There were many subtleties ongoing, my impression was and still is that Billinghurst knowingly made the change outside of our policy, and posted the message that he did in order to send a stronger message (that unfortunately was not received).
  • Two wrongs don’t make a right.
  • The ends do not justify the means.
  • Both the blocking and the unblocking where done for the good of the community, both admins thought they were doing the right thing, both thought they had a good reason to knowingly violate our expectations.
IMHO Billinghurst took a gamble that his action would send a message that would cut short a an unpleasant episode. All of use except for one saw what was going on. Many of us did our best to limit the damage. The fact the most of us agree that knowingly incorrect action by Billinghurst, was not damaging to the community; while the other admins knowingly incorrect action, disrupted the community and created far more harm then good, does not detract from both actions being equally wrong. As George has mentioned below "I don't think the above mentioned deviation indicates a pattern". Additionally his follow up actions were very good, and did probably help to limit the damage. It is important to me to call out and challenge this action, not because it reflects badly on Billinghurst, but because ignoring it would reflect badly on the community. Very shortly we are going to be having another discussion about ’knowingly incorrect action for the good of the community’, let’s try not to judge just by the outcome. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The policy sits subsidiary to the principles with which we profess, and the policy has been written to try to capture and to give such guidance to administrators. It is up to the community whether it believes that my actions were outside of the principles. If the actions were outside of the written policy, and if so were they reasonable or not. If reasonable, then whether the policy should capture such actions, or that it makes things so complex that again the confirmation process is the place for that review. If unreasonable, then whether it requires sanction or not. Judging on a policy alone just makes one controlled by a rule, not the intent of the rule, and that it is there to guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

2014-06 confirmation

Administrator since January 2009, checkuser since September 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2015-07 confirmation

Administrator since January 2009, checkuser since September 2009, WMF steward (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2016-08 confirmation

admin since February 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2017-09 confirmation

admin since February 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2018-10 confirmation

admin since February 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2019-11 confirmation

admin since February 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2020-12 confirmation

admin since February 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2022-01 confirmation

admin since February 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2023-02 confirmation

admin since January 2009 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2023-05 Interface-admin

The following discussion is closed:

Done as "permanent". Renewal will be combined with annual admin review.


Billinghurst (talk • contribs) • activity • Global

Hi. I wish to do some Mediawiki: ns js tidy work. I no longer hold global IA rights, so applying locally. I have current admin rights, and have edited in that namespace before. I do currently have 2-FA enabled which is the WMF requirement for assignation of that right. We have no formalised policy for that right, so dropping the request here. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this a request for temporary rights, or for "permanent"? If the former, for how long? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume Billinghurst won't go rogue with this bit. :)
But as a general issue, and unlike normal admin rights, I want to keep the number of people that can mess with global JS and CSS to a minimum and restricted to those with the geekery credentials to not break stuff too bad or too often (failure modes for messups in project-wide JS/CSS are often catastrophic). And my impression is that while you're among our most generally competent technical contributors, your main interest isn't programming as such (I could be wrong). So… What sorts of things are you planning to do here? And is it the general interface messages in MediaWiki: you're planning to work on (which I know you're more than qualified for), or actual JS/CSS/JSON (e.g. Gadgets)? Can it reasonably be handled by just asking me (as the only currently active Interface Admin) to do it, without making it too inconvenient for you to get stuff done? I'm happy to do it, but I know how inefficient and annoying it is to do it that way for all but the most incidental tasks.
I am also generally concerned with the attack surface created by these permissions, and don't want it sitting around if unused just because it might be convenient at some unspecified point. Are you doing a spurt of cleanups in MediaWiki: now, or are you planning for it to be an ongoing thing? Would it be sufficient for your purposes to have it assigned with an expiry date?
In any case, I   Support Billinghurst getting this bit if they have need of it; I would just like to scope it down as much as possible on general grounds. Xover (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
At the moment it is a amendment to the edittools. And yes, I can ask you, though that is not a good bottleneck. This is not something that is new to me, similarly, the introduction and updates of gadgets on-site. I have been trusted in this space since 2009; could do it when I had the global rights; have had roles requiring greater security and trust; and I maintain excellent security practices. Plus as this is reviewed annually by the community, it is always a year by year thing and I commit to saying when I have finished with it. I will always discuss broad changes to be made (my practice), gadgets that I introduce, and I am not expecting to be heavy on the tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

2024-03 Confirmation

admin since 2009-01 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Billinghurst will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Billinghurst&oldid=14006420"